Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (The Modern Scholarship Reform Act)

[dallashorn02]

Originally posted by john gray:
How many of the current 120+ division 1 athletic programs aren't losing money ?
How many of the 300+ basketball programs aren't losing money ?

The extra funds would need to come from somewhere , most likely by raising tuition on the student body .

There would need to be a form of revenue sharing involved that the universities/conferences agreed to.

If the universities decide that's it's every man for itself, then a division break would need occur to separate those that can pay and those that can't. For those schools that can't afford it, then they should be competing in an NCAA division with like members where they are not bound to pay these stipends. It means their product isn't in high enough demand to warrant payment to players.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by jaguar02:

The pay for these guys ie. scholarships, changes yearly with the cost of tution.. Guys at schools like Stanford, Northwestern ect. are literally getting scholarships worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Please stop acting like these guys are getting raw deals. They are getting money that no other student is getting, and a large portion of them are getting access to educations and institutions that they could never get access to minus their athletic prowess.

A couple of issues...

a. No other student is generating billions through their sweat equity, so bringing others into the discussion is meaningless. They aren't average or normal.

b. The educations that is being received is being compromised often by the stress/demands of requirements these kids make and the fact that many schools are putting them in majors that they'll never use or be able to use.

This problem isn't the athlete's alone... and again... the legality of what is happening won't likely stand up in court from every angle.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Dugg:
I think the reason why there hasn't been that much of a change to the system is that in principle it conforms to an amateur model. These changes are based on 'fairness' which is a undefined and pretty weak basis to create a set of rules. Why 10K, why not 20K or 50K? You have created some magical limit and then determined for yourself that enough schools can afford it. I can use you own arguments it isn't the responsibility of the players to pay for the other players to ask if UT could pay 20K why should they worry about anyone else?

The endorsement/likeness idea is absurd on the face.

I don't really have an issue with some limited changes. Insurance on the surface seems easy but becomes an issue when it related to long term difficult to diagnose ailments or degenerative conditions. I'm not sure any agency is up for leaving itself on the hook for an ever expanding pool of potential claimants.

a. Yes, the numbers I picked are arbitrary. If this continues to go to court, the numbers very well might reach much higher levels than I posted. Better negotiate something fair than get taken to the woodshed.

b. Thinking that players shouldn't be able to profit off their names, while the schools can at will is absurd on the face and on everything else.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:
I'm for blowing the system up for the most part, but I think Ketch presented a very reasonable and more practical alternative solution that would work without needing total implosion of the NCAA. The NCAA better do something quickly or the courts are going to do it for them.

Sadly, the NCAA isn't about being reasonable.

 

[Dugg]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by jaguar02:

The pay for these guys ie. scholarships, changes yearly with the cost of tution.. Guys at schools like Stanford, Northwestern ect. are literally getting scholarships worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Please stop acting like these guys are getting raw deals. They are getting money that no other student is getting, and a large portion of them are getting access to educations and institutions that they could never get access to minus their athletic prowess.

A couple of issues...

a. No other student is generating billions through their sweat equity, so bringing others into the discussion is meaningless. They aren't average or normal.

b. The educations that is being received is being compromised often by the stress/demands of requirements these kids make and the fact that many schools are putting them in majors that they'll never use or be able to use.

This problem isn't the athlete's alone... and again... the legality of what is happening won't likely stand up in court from every angle.

I think Congress would step in and exempt the NCAA long before the courtrooms dictate all that much.

 

[jwebtx]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by jwebtx:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by jwebtx:
Disagree 99% with your NCAA take.

My solution is if you want to be paid, play professionally. All leagues should allow kids to go pro from high school. If they can't make the bigs, they can play in a developmental league or go abroad. If they chose to go to college, they can leave whenever, but they aren't getting paid. they are amateurs.

So, the college student-athlete should see improvements in their deal, but everyone else gets to cash in for free because they play for fun.

They haven't been amateurs for a long time, they just don't get paid.

They are amateurs enjoying a free education and most of what college has to offer. If they want to be paid for playing sports, get a job doing that.

They already have that job, it just doesn't pay them...

It is not a job. They are students playing sports for their alma mater. That is college amateur athletics. The fact that certain sports at certain schools generate a lot of money does not change that. These kids' contribution and sacrifice results in a free education and a better university for all students.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by cagrafft:
I'm not trolling...

I'm not arguing that those superstar players don't bring more fans to the stands, and sell more UT merchandise, but where was UT before Deloss came? What was the UT football stadium like as well as the rest of the major UT programs? Baseball, basketball, football are in a BY FAR better position than they were before Deloss was hired.

Guys like Vince, Ricky, Colt, Manziel come every few years (I'm not talking talent, because obviously there aren't VYs showing up every year. I'm talking guys that are like that in terms of exposure and superstar status. There will always be superstars and heisman winners every year that people want to watch) But people and administrators like Deloss are hard to find IMO and are the ones that have to be consistently good in order to make a program great. I think Deloss carries and generates revenue far exceeding anything these student-athletes could.

You do realize that DeLoss has made millions off his work, right? Your point that players should not receive more compensation than what they already have is based on DeLoss Dodds' well-paid work?

FYI, Kentucky's Final Four run generated 330K in bonuses yesterday for athletic officials.





This post was edited on 3/31 3:44 PM by Ketchum

 

[1011marytime]

Originally posted by Dugg:

I think Congress would step in and exempt the NCAA long before the courtrooms dictate all that much.

hmmm...I can't think of one piece of evidence that supports this as a possibility.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 1011marytime:
I predict that, after the next inevitable legal setback, they'll see the writing on the wall and will cut a deal. I don't believe they'll risk a draconian legal ruling.

Cut a deal and share 3% of the gross, or let some judge hand out 25% of the gross. They're not stupid.

bingo

 

[john gray]

There is not a student athlete that is generating Billions . That is a huge exaggeration .
The reason that Texas is so profitable is not the tv contracts it's the Longhorn Foundation .
I don't believe the donors would pay the thousands every year if the money was targeted for revenue sharing to support Houston , SMU Etc .

The University presidents like that 430,000 student athletes can go to college and represent their universities .

 

[1981hornmaster]

I agree with Dugg, Congress will fix this because its an easy non-partisan issue most agree on. Ketch has dug in on this issue and spent countless hours preparing to defend his thesis. But! the majority of Americans don't want College sports to become professional farm clubs. We Love amateur sports and we spend all that money that's cumulating into billions, so we'll ask our elected Reps to make a law keeping it just the way we like it. In fact I have already contacted my Reps to do just that as I'm sure countless others are doing as well.

 

[Bay Horn]

Originally posted by FrancoBevo:
The NCAA need to hold their ground period. These student athletes need to understand that the only reason i pay even a nickel to watch them play is because they are wearing my school's colors. And that is true for every single person that plunks down any cash to support college sports. The schools have paid the 100's of millions to get it to the point where they are getting a return on investment and now the students want to cry foul. I'd call their bluff. Let them go build their own stadiums, hire their own coaches and negotiate their own TV deals and then get a fan base that plunk down the cash to come watch them play. Good luck with that by the way.....

If they continue down this path, they will destroy college sports. There will 25 schools that will be able to afford football which will eliminate scholarship opportunities for 100's of other students that will no longer get them at places like Northern Illinois or other places like that.

People who support this are just incredibly naive idealists who can't get past the misguided concept of "fair" - it's no different than the guy who never quits bitching about his pay, that dude can always go start his own company and pay himself whatever he wants......funny how that person rarely does....

The attitude that the students are fortunate to get what they get and that they should just DIY is laughable. Everybody claims that they are just scraping by but the Universities refuse to open the book. The total contribution margin of athletics is never discussed (TV revenues, merch, licensing deals, donations in and out of the AD program, increases in applications, decreases in aid requirements) -- a complete picture of the revenue is deliberately opaque.

Fun how everyone claims poverty but does not have a problem spending or declining status.

And what is "destroy college sports" look like. Getting rid of the farce that is "Student Athlete" -- a deliberate attempt to allow the University to have it both ways -- all the power and limited obligations.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by jspirohorn:

I agree a player should be able to profit off his own likeness. I just think the practice would be impossible to regulate and lead to more players playing for NIKE than State U.

I did some research and you are correct that all of the power conferences can handle $2 million so I'm coming around there. Using $50 million in annual revenue as a cut-off though none of the American Athletic Conference teams except for Louisville generate more than $50 million/year.

The NCAA can head off unionization at that level but if individual teams can organize separately, UT players will get paid better than Texas Tech players, effectively ending the major conferences.

a. The difficulty of this getting done can't be the reason it doesn't get done.That's for the NCAA to figure out.

b. The AAC will need to step it up. Here's the thing... my guess is that their TV partners will step in and help, ensuring that their TV properties hold together. There's always an angle for these schools.

c. The NCAA can head off a lot of this stuff...

 

[cagrafft]

Originally posted by Lngnstrt:
"I'm not arguing that those superstar players don't bring more fans to the stands, and sell more UT merchandise, but where was UT before Deloss came?"

And Deloss was paid a million a year by the time he left. So as revenues increased, he was paid more. They figured out what he was responsible for and gave him a raise.A?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So how much are the players responsible for in your mind?

 

[cagrafft]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by cagrafft:
I'm not trolling...

I'm not arguing that those superstar players don't bring more fans to the stands, and sell more UT merchandise, but where was UT before Deloss came? What was the UT football stadium like as well as the rest of the major UT programs? Baseball, basketball, football are in a BY FAR better position than they were before Deloss was hired.

Guys like Vince, Ricky, Colt, Manziel come every few years (I'm not talking talent, because obviously there aren't VYs showing up every year. I'm talking guys that are like that in terms of exposure and superstar status. There will always be superstars and heisman winners every year that people want to watch) But people and administrators like Deloss are hard to find IMO and are the ones that have to be consistently good in order to make a program great. I think Deloss carries and generates revenue far exceeding anything these student-athletes could.

You do realize that DeLoss has made millions off his work, right? Your point that players should not receive more compensation than what they already have is based on DeLoss Dodds' well-paid work?

FYI, Kentucky's Final Four run generated 330K in bonuses yesterday for athletic officials.





This post was edited on 3/31 3:44 PM by Ketchum

Exactly, you called it "his" work. So how and where do you draw the line of how much of the work is "his" and how much of the work is the student athletes? Deloss was one person overseeing the entire AD. Not 85 teenagers playing an extracurricular activity. And that's just football. How and where do you draw the line for the other sports? Or do we get to still "exploit" them because their sports aren't generating revenue.

 

[1011marytime]

Originally posted by 1981hornmaster:
I agree with Dugg, Congress will fix this because its an easy non-partisan issue most agree on. Ketch has dug in on this issue and spent countless hours preparing to defend his thesis. But! the majority of Americans don't want College sports to become professional farm clubs. We Love amateur sports and we spend all that money that's cumulating into billions, so we'll ask our elected Reps to make a law keeping it just the way we like it. In fact I have already contacted my Reps to do just that as I'm sure countless others are doing as well.

Pure optimism on your part, that the balance of fans agree with you (they don't), or that Congress is standing on the sidelines ready to squash the last year of legal developments (of which CFB mgmt is currently 0 for 2).

 

[jwebtx]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by jwebtx:
Just because some schools generate a ton of money, doesn't mean the students are entitled to it.

Best line of the day. Made with zero respect to how the ton of money is created.

Again, the courtrooms are not going to side with this viewpoint. Time to make a deal, my man... or else.

The money is made by selling tickets, tv contracts, and merchandise to see/support the university's team. student-athletes play for universities. Outside of the whacky labor relations board ruling, the appeals courts will agree with me. They are amateurs and the fact some universities are generating coin does not change that.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 806SportsMD:

I. All student-athletes will have full medical coverage during their time as student athletes and if an injury occurs within their sport that requires treatment beyond their time as student-athletes, they'll continue to receive coverage.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Ketch - first off I really enjoyed the read and agree for the most part. In regards to medical coverage for NCAA schools this is apart of my professional life. As of now - student-athletes have medical care at no cost to them for athletic related injuries. If the athlete has primary insurance that coverage pays first. Then the school pays co-pay, deductible or coinsurance. If the athlete does not have primary insurance then the school or in some cases the secondary insurance company picks up all of the cost. Under the current NCAA rules - coverage last for two years after athletic eligibility is exhausted. The biggest varying factor at schools is how they choose to handle sickness or care that has nothing to do with athletic injuries. Some don't pay a dime, some buy a standard policy, some choose the student health plan.

I believe for the 30-60 NCAA schools that have the budget to break away from the traditional model that they will look at a Workers Compensation model that will provide extended care well beyond their playing days, just like the system that is in place for professional leagues. The cost will be much more but the benefits will be greater. My 2 cents.

My point is that in case of a disaster scenario, the health care related to injures that go on for more than those next two years are also covered. I believe that is not the case now, no?

 

[1011marytime]

Originally posted by jwebtx:

They are amateurs and the fact some universities are generating coin does not change that.

Incorrect. The explosion in revenue is central to the case, according to the NLRB.

It's not an overstatement to say that it's the most important aspect.

 

[ball911]

The "kill the golden goose" crowd has absolutely no understanding of how athletics benefits these universities. It goes way beyond football games and they aren't about to give up the multitude of benefits they are receiving from athletic programs. At a very minimum, they can afford medical insurance beyond planning days, scholarships to grad school, and increased spending money. That's just the start. This argument reminds me of all the usual suspects who always side with the rich and powerful who yelled and screamed that Curt Flood's case would end baseball. Redonkulous.

 

[john gray]

A quick google search and review of several articles revealed the following .

Of the roughly 220 division1 public schools 10-12 % broke even or showed a profit between 2010 ,2011 or 2012 .

The average compensation package for a student athlete was $76,000 at the public schools in 2010 .
The private school numbers would obviously be different due to the higher cost of tuition .

I posed this question several hours ago and received 0 responses .

 

[Panama Merle]

I'm in favor of getting rid of all athletic scholarships.

 

[Joe's Generic Horn]

What's the situation with Berg? I've heard lots of rumors but what can you briefly say about his situation

 

[Lngnstrt]

Originally posted by cagrafft:

Originally posted by Lngnstrt:
"I'm not arguing that those superstar players don't bring more fans to the stands, and sell more UT merchandise, but where was UT before Deloss came?"

And Deloss was paid a million a year by the time he left. So as revenues increased, he was paid more. They figured out what he was responsible for and gave him a raise.A?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So how much are the players responsible for in your mind?

Somewhere between what they're getting now, and the $5m Charlie Strong makes.

Btw, and I'm not directing this at you, but I remember this board being up in arms whenever Mack referred to the players as "kids". On this thread I've seen several instances where posters referred to the players as "kids playing a game" or something similar. Just find that interesting.

 

[tamarahorn]

A couple of things:

-- I think you should replace university president with head football coach in your conversation. They make more salary, they get the performance bonuses, and they get the sweetheart investment deals from boosters. They are the ones directly profiting off the athletes work.

--I agree with most everything you wrote EXCEPT the endorsement deals. That is the trickiest thing in the whole list. That is where the shady activity will come out and I think will cause problems between teammates, coaches, schemes used, etc.

Perhaps giving the athletes a percentage of university merchandise sales with their likeness/name would be a way to straddle the current position with something fair to the athletes for their marketing worth? I would still cap whatever their earnings would be at a certain dollar amount until they left. Let's be real, Vince could have had a penthouse and a Ferrari his junior year at UT from his merchandising % and that type of thing is going to really change college athletics and not in a good way.

I wouldn't endorse any national deals with independent companies. Who is he representing- Nike, Gatorade, or the university of Texas? If it's nike, then I think my interest is going to plummet. I have no warm or fuzzy feelings for Nike. Any endorsements should be university related while they are attending school, imo.

 

[SouthAustinHorn]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SouthAustinHorn:
I don't think you could ever possibly regulate endorsement deals to stop boosters from infiltrating the process. I'm not sure how you would even go about it. If you allow endorsements, you have essentially let the genie out of the bottle completely.

I don't have a problem with paying the players though.

Well, not allowing the players endorsement deals because the NCAA isn't prepared to properly monitor the situation is an NCA problem, not a player problem.

Incompetence can't be an alibi.

My point is that it is not possible to regulate them no matter how competent the regulator. How do you draw the line between a booster who just wants to pay players and one that legitimately wants to use players to market his product?

If you are marketing to fans of that program, the more players you have on board the better. In fact, the more you pay the players for their endorsements the better because the fans will appreciate you taking care of the program and will thus be more likely to like you for doing so.

Why would I buy a car from anyone but Red McCombs if I know that part of my purchase is going to support UT football? Now think of all the other products out there that I have to buy, and for which it doesn't really matter to me where I buy them. It's not going to be possible to decide to what extent a booster is legitimately seeking endorsements and to what extent they are just paying players.

This post was edited on 3/31 8:11 PM by SouthAustinHorn

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by john gray:
How many of the current 120+ division 1 athletic programs aren't losing money ?
How many of the 300+ basketball programs aren't losing money ?

The extra funds would need to come from somewhere , most likely by raising tuition on the student body .

It might lead to some schools running tighter budgets. That might not be a bad thing.

It also might lead to even richer TV deals, as the schools look for ways to counter-balance the new cost. It's crazy to think the costs won't be off-set through any number of ways.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ebeatty3753:

Ketch you are killing the anti athlete crowd by yourself.





This post was edited on 3/31 2:58 PM by Ebeatty3753

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by dallashorn02:

Originally posted by john gray:
How many of the current 120+ division 1 athletic programs aren't losing money ?
How many of the 300+ basketball programs aren't losing money ?

The extra funds would need to come from somewhere , most likely by raising tuition on the student body .

There would need to be a form of revenue sharing involved that the universities/conferences agreed to.

If the universities decide that's it's every man for itself, then a division break would need occur to separate those that can pay and those that can't. For those schools that can't afford it, then they should be competing in an NCAA division with like members where they are not bound to pay these stipends. It means their product isn't in high enough demand to warrant payment to players.

The division break looms. The true lightweights will be left out, no longer to piggyback the heavyweights.

 

[Hbacker]

Lol at ketch thinking he's smart enough to have a legit take on this issue. It's way over his head. Scare tactics? Who's peddling those, the NCAA or the pay the players shills? Wonder what Ketch's agenda is? Consider the source - the guy who relies on the goodwill of 16-year olds and their families for his income and relevance in the world.

I'll tell you one thing that's a fact, which is the only factual thing in this thread: the day college players get paid is the day I stop giving the Longhorn Foundation a dime of my money and the day I stop giving a rat **** about college sports. I can 100% guarantee that. Not that it matters, but I can vote with my money just like anyone else.