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

[PCHorn]

So room board and tuition at the University of Texas is approximately $27k for housing, books, fees and tuition. In addition to that, scholarship athletes get meals (2 per day any UT cafeteria) and a training table meal (think all you can eat ribeye steak) Lets call it a $20 meal x 200 so $4k. UT football players get preferred healthcare. They don't go to the student health center, they have private team physicians and quite frankly the best doctors money can buy. I am not sure how much a tutor charges in college, I did a quick search and saw a couple of advertisements for $30 per hour. Football players get unlimited tutoring, unlimited. Lets assume 2 hours per day x 200 days so 30x2=60 60 x 200 = $12K. While I don't have current figures, a couple of years ago I was told that less then 10% of the football team had grades that would qualify them for school. How much money would you pay to get your son and daughter into Texas?

I think that it is pretty easy to paint a picture that Texas football players receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $45,000 in exchange for playing football. Look at a school like Stanford or Notre Dame and the number could be closer to $200,000. Any argument that they aren't being compensated is crap. Any argument that they aren't being fairly compensated is dicey at best.

The economic benefit of a college degree vs not getting into college is tremendous over a lifetime. The doors that opened for you because you were a player are closed for most.

Sorry for the edit comments. What the real solution is D4. Let the big schools break loose and form their own rule org like the NCAA. Put in full blown training tables, stipends for athletes, travel allowances, ect...

This post was edited on 3/31 8:43 PM by PCHorn

 

[jwebtx]

Originally posted by 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.

The NLRB ruling needs to be assessed in context of who made it. It is much like reviewing rulings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Interesting if you have a certain agenda, but clearly agenda driven and disconnected from the actual rule of law. While I recognize a NLRB decision is more difficult to discount due the inherent oversight structure, the Chicago branch under the O admin is about as reliable as the 9th Circuit on their worst day.

From a pure legal analysis, "the explosion in revenue" has ZERO relevance. If you are an employee, you are an employee (until you are fired or quit) in spite of your employer's performance. employer/employee are quantifiable positions. student-athlete/university are clearly distinct. attempts to blur the distinctions appear to be the fashion of the victim set.

 

[john gray]

As I posted almost 90% of the 220 division 1 athletic departments did not make money in 2010-2012.

I agree with many of your ideas especially the medical care .
My understanding is that players do have some expenses paid for at Texas in addition to school , housing , food etc .
Since the average income for a family of 4 is around $50,000 I think that $10,000 of pure discretionary money is rather excessive .
The very few football and basketball players that truly change programs are almost always more than taken care of by the schools and alumni .

I don't feel too sorry that JF has to wait a year until he is 21 to fully exploit all of his marketing potential .

Serious question , what would the next Vince demand in a fair market coming out of high school .
His market value at Texas or Oregon would be totally different that at almost all other colleges .

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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.

agree to disagree strongly

 

[PCHorn]

Ketch you may be arguing for the end of NCAA football and the beginning of a minor league pro football system, I am sure that will be to the benefit of the players.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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.

The 35-60 hours a week spent on a task that helps creates billions for their highly paid bosses suggests that it is actually a job.

It's hard for me to understand a position such as this one that is romantic for the sake of exploitation.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by john gray:
There is not a student athlete that is generating Billions . That is a huge exaggeration .

A college senior at a program like Texas will have helped the NCAA generate more than 3 billion dollars during his time in school, with hundreds of hours (and possibly thousands) each year invested into the process.

It's not one athlete... it's all of them as a group that are being exploited.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 1981hornmaster:
I agree with Dugg, Congress will fix this because its an easy non-partisan issue most agree on.

There is zero evidence to support this. There is more evidence pf support for the players if we're going to have a legitimate conversation about its potential involvement.

Originally posted by 1981hornmaster:

Ketch has dug in on this issue and spent countless hours preparing to defend his thesis.

It doesn't take nearly that much time to defend against most of this counter rhetoric.

Originally posted by 1981hornmaster:

But! the majority of Americans don't want College sports to become professional farm clubs.

They already are. It's naive to think otherwise.The only ones not making cash on this operation is the players.

Their coaches are certainly professionals.

Originally posted by 1981hornmaster:

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.The law you want might actually be illegal.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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 .

There's literally not a question in this post.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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

Nothing worth getting worked up about at this point.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by cagrafft:

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.

Feels like a rhetorical question. Where do YOU draw the line?

I would suggest the athlete part is a pretty big equation for these TV contracts. The interest goes way down if these are regular joes on the field. Ratings decrease significantly if the product feels significantly watered down.

It never changes the actual point and legality of what is taking place.

You're asking the wrong questions.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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.

A lot of very smart people believe otherwise. The judge in the O'Bannon lawsuit does not seem to be pro-exploitation.

 

[TexasForever83]

Ketch, why is it the SEC presidents that you bash for not sharing?

Aren't they the ones paying players more than anyone else?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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

The weight of your impossibility should not be shouldered by the athletes because the NCAA can't make it work. That is fundamentally tragic to suggest. It's like suggesting that Woody and Matthew should have never tried in True Detective because the case was going to be too hard to solve.

As far as your final scenario, I don't know what your car purchasing has to do with any of this. Buy your car from wherever you want. That you are concerned about this level of product placement is a little strange when you consider what is being overlooked.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by 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 f*ck about college sports. I can 100% guarantee that. Not that it matters, but I can vote with my money just like anyone else.

Is a scholarship not a form of payment?

Curious... what do YOU think my agenda is?

 

[john gray]

I guess you missed the post from mid afternoon asking what % of division 1 athletic departments don't lose money .
Several hours later I did a quick google search and answered my own question .

For some strange reason I thought that how many colleges are already losing money would be of interest in the discussion .

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by PCHorn:

What the real solution is D4. Let the big schools break loose and form their own rule org like the NCAA. Put in full blown training tables, stipends for athletes, travel allowances, ect...

There's part of the almost likely solution.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

.

Here are the major pieces of reform legislation that I would propose the NCAA voluntarily offer:


II. All student-athletes will receive an added $10,000 cost-of-living benefit as part of their scholarship package that will ...

===============================================================================

There are 420,000 NCAA students on scholarship. So that is a $4.2 billion dollar item right there. That isn't million, it is billion with a "b". I know the NCAA is making a lot from TV moneys, but maybe start out with $2,000 not $10,000. Add to that the health care costs, is your idea realistic?

 

[TexasForever83]

I hate the thought of college football becoming a minor league. I think it would lose popularity and in turn, money, defeating the purpose of the whole thing.

How about we keep it how it is, but develop a specific health care program for college athletes that can be used for life. I do hate the fact that some kids develop life long health issues from playing college football (concussions, knees, etc.).

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by john gray:
As I posted almost 90% of the 220 division 1 athletic departments did not make money in 2010-2012.

A couple of thoughts... a. Not everyone will survive or deserves to survive. b. These schools will be able to create outlets that will cover their new costs. Their TV partners will not lose their reality TV programming. Let's keep it real and stop the scare rhetoric.

Originally posted by john gray:

I agree with many of your ideas especially the medical care .
My understanding is that players do have some expenses paid for at Texas in addition to school , housing , food etc .
Since the average income for a family of 4 is around $50,000 I think that $10,000 of pure discretionary money is rather excessive .

A courtroom might find that number to be very low. Not taking that risk is costly. Hell, the NCAA will originally come in with a lowball number... like the 2k stipend it talks about.

Originally posted by john gray:


The very few football and basketball players that truly change programs are almost always more than taken care of by the schools and alumni .

Not really the point at all. This about the entire collection.

Originally posted by john gray:

I don't feel too sorry that JF has to wait a year until he is 21 to fully exploit all of his marketing potential .

You not feeling sorry has nothing to do with anything. The NCAA does not wait until he is 21 to cash in him or anyone else.

Originally posted by john gray:

Serious question , what would the next Vince demand in a fair market coming out of high school .
His market value at Texas or Oregon would be totally different that at almost all other colleges .

I don't know...

Serious question: why would you begrudge the next Vince from cashing in on his market value coming out of high school? Is there anything else in your life that runs parallel to your feelings on this subject that supports the position.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by PCHorn:
Ketch you may be arguing for the end of NCAA football and the beginning of a minor league pro football system, I am sure that will be to the benefit of the players.

The NCAA already is a minor league football system. It just doesn't share or treat its athletes the way they should.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by TexasForever83:
Ketch, why is it the SEC presidents that you bash for not sharing?

Aren't they the ones paying players more than anyone else?

 

[FrancoBevo]

Originally posted by 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-F about college sports. I can 100% guarantee that. Not that it matters, but I can vote with my money just like anyone else.

Agree - Ketch is way over his head on this - he's clearly emotionally involved in this and like all good bleeding heart liberals in the world, reason evaporates under the doctrine of his personal preconceived notion of fairness - then he throws out BS like this or that "can't be disputed" to convince himself that he is right. Bottom line, the only reason a single person, other than a parent of these student athletes pays one red cent to watch, live or on TV, is because they put on the school colors and that is the only undisputed fact in this whole argument. And this notion that their "compensation hasn't changed" is patently absurd and laughable. The value of the scholarships and the investment in the facilities and equipment they benefit from has increased by ten fold at least. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good screech about fairness -

 

[longhornmjc]

Just a few things I want to comment on. I dont want to go deeply into the pay for play conversation because it has stretched on long enough and it is not a true argument. Neither side is willing to budge and hear the other (that goes for you as well Ketch)

That said, my biggest gripe with what you say comes from one of your main arguments. You state that it is not the responsibility of the entitled to keep the others afloat (UT keeping NIU for instance). That said, you simultaneously argue that all athletes should be paid. How is that not the exact same thing in another light. That would be football (makes money) paying for all the other sports????

If that is your argument, how can you possibly both of those cases. You cant say both of those things. It is illogical. If you want to argue that football players bring in money and should therefore be paid, fine. That said, you should also be arguing that sports that dont make money should be killed. Again, you cant have it both ways.

Also, the difficulty in this argument for me lies in the fact that in a business sense, I think you are right. That said, I also think it will kill college athletics. Pay for play would reduce scholarships for college athletes in the long run and end the game as well know it. That would suck, but it still may be the right thing to do

 

[Lngnstrt]

Franco, that's a bit like saying Dale Earnhardt is the most popular driver because of his car. Sports, especially in the tv era, are driven by personalities.

 

[SouthAustinHorn]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by 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

The weight of your impossibility should not be shouldered by the athletes because the NCAA can't make it work. That is fundamentally tragic to suggest. It's like suggesting that Woody and Matthew should have never tried in True Detective because the case was going to be too hard to solve.

As far as your final scenario, I don't know what your car purchasing has to do with any of this. Buy your car from wherever you want. That you are concerned about this level of product placement is a little strange when you consider what is being overlooked.

I think you are a little lost here. If you want to take the position that players should be able to secure endorsements freely just like anyone else in our society, that is a perfectly defensible position. But pretending that you could let them get some level of endorsements but then somehow regulate the endorsements to make sure that they were legit and not just payola from boosters is pure fantasy. Its either going to be a free market or it isn't. Stated another way, in our society we have no way of valuing what an endorsement ought to be worth other than what the free market will bear. Neither the NCAA nor anyone else will be in a position to say that some contracts are legit and others aren't. And I'm not sure why you would possibly want them to try.

A couple other thoughts: you mentioned that the law a poster wants might be illegal. The only way that a new federal statute would be illegal is if it was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that there is no constitutional right for college football players to get paid.

Second, you talk about a court finding that a certain amount of money would be required. I'm not sure that makes sense. If the players continue to win the day and the NLRB regional ruling becomes the law, this will mean that the players are employees. They would thus be protected by all the statutes that apply to employer/employee relationships. They would thus be entitled to minimum wage. But there is no law that requires them to be provided a "fair" amount of the revenue that they generate. What we would have in that situation is just a free market. It would remain to be seen what the players could negotiate. But it wouldn't be a court ordering some outcome.

 

[TW51]

The one thing that players get is a chance for an education. It is not just the scholorship but admittance to a University. Without sports, many of these players would never qualify much less be admitted to a first rate school. How much is that worth especially for the overwhelming majority of atheletes who will never smell a professional career?

 

[SkullSplitter]

Originally posted by mackbrown:

Eliminating thousands of scholarships so a few football players can make an extra few grand makes perfect sense.

Yep, this is the crux of the matter. I have no problem with the argument that college athletes are getting screwed financially. But I am sick and tired of the pro-pay crowd dancing around Title IX and non-revenue-producing programs as if they don't matter. Those who say they want the athletes to get their fair share seem to actually mean that they want the football and basketball athletes to get paid...while nearly everyone else goes and pounds sand, often without a scholarship.

Because that is in fact what will likely happen. Here's irony for you: in the name of addressing inequality, the pro-pay crowd plans to widen the gap even more.

The pro-pay crowd is pretending we can blow up the "athlete" side of the student-athlete myth without blowing up the "student" side as well. And that's just naive.



This post was edited on 3/31 11:48 PM by SkullSplitter

 

[PCHorn]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by PCHorn:
Ketch you may be arguing for the end of NCAA football and the beginning of a minor league pro football system, I am sure that will be to the benefit of the players.

The NCAA already is a minor league football system. It just doesn't share or treat its athletes the way they should.

Well except for the fact that the NCAA gets very little revenue from football. My limited understanding is that the vast majority of the revenue the NCAA receives is from the college basketball tourney. The NFL is the beneficiary of college football, they don't however contribute anything to their farm system. I actually asked Patterson if college football would ever ask for money, he dodged the question.

 

[cagrafft]

The simplest solution is for the NFL to create a Development league like the NBA. Problem solved. That way the NCAA doesn't have to be a minor league system like you think. Let the student athletes that want a degree/education in addition to their football activities come to universities and colleges and be amateurs.

Let the ones that want the endorsements and $$$ go to the NFL-D league. Sure the NFL-D League won't be seen on TV as much as the NCAA or NFL, but at least you're not denying the players an opportunity to make money out of high school.

Think of the NCAA as an internship for Apple while the NFL or NFL-D League would be considered working full-time for Microsoft.

Another question. Would you agree that high schools should also give their players compensation or benefits? Seems like your argument that the NCAA is a minor league to the NFL can be applied to the high schools being a minor league to the NCAA. Hell if a 5* rated athlete on Rivals takes his team to the State championship, should they get paid too for the extra revenue they bring the school for the playoff run/championship?