The Pay For College Play Debate: Where Do You Stand?

[tdigle]

A cursory search showed me that this wasn't a topic recently covered in the Tailgate, so I wanted to bring it up for discussion. According to this report issued by an advocacy group for college athletes, football and basketball players at top-tier collegiate programs are, on average, worth over $100,000 at a yearly fair market value. While I have yet to be fully swayed towards supporting outright pay for play (admittedly, I lean towards that side), I think there are two claims frequently made by pay for play opponents that must be impugned:

1) The overvaluation of the education many college athletes get: The argumentative bulwark of most pay for play detractors is that college athletes get the privilege of a four-year education and that this more than compensates them for their services. Besides being flat-out wrong if the aforementioned report's valuation is correct, such a claim also makes the mistake of assuming that an athlete's four-year education is just as valuable as the one received by a typical college student. On one hand, a significant amount of college athletes forgo four/five years of education to declare themselves eligible for either the NBA or NFL. On the other hand, at least in the NFL, an overwhelming majority of players go broke within years of retiring. How truly valuable is a college education if you can't learn to do something as simple as properly managing your finances?

2) College athletes are amateurs: Firstly, what the heck is this even supposed to mean? This line of argument sounds as if it was highlighted in a seminal position paper against pay for play but that its readers forgot to digest its substantiating paragraphs. More often that not, this is a reason against pay for play that is given, at most, scant support. Secondly, how "amateur" are college athletes when professional leagues are so intimately associated with college athletics? I absolutely loathe that fact that colleges/universities are the primary preparatory institutions for the NBA and NFL, but it's the lesser of two evils (for parity's sake, I'd find even more loathsome if the NFL and NBA were akin to the EPL, where teams groom players in their own system at an early age). Of the two opposing arguments to pay for play that I've covered here, this is the one that absolutely must go if any rational discourse on the subject is to take place. Most of these players aren't amateur athletes; they're players who are essentially in a holding system until they can get paid.

With my peace said, where do you stand on the topic of pay for play? Regardless of whether or not you support it, do you think it's the direction that we're heading in?

[SnyderShrugged]

Pay them a portion of the overall proceeds gained from bowl games etc. Not a ton of money, but enough to justify their work.

[Predicto]

Pay them minimum wage for time spent at practice and games, which is pretty much the same as anyone else with a part-time job working for a university while they go to school.

I see no sign that this is going to happen any time soon.

[HOF44]

Let them have agents and get what they can from the schools, and if they decide to take classes there they have to pay tuition. No other adults in the US are more taken advantage of than college athletes that raise staggering amounts of money for the schools but are allowed nothing but tuition.

[TimmySmith]

They won't be paid for playing games, ever. But the NCAA should compensate them for selling their likeness (meaning video games, jerseys, etc.)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Pay them minimum wage for time spent at practice and games, which is pretty much the same as anyone else with a part-time job working for a university while they go to school.

I see no sign that this is going to happen any time soon.

I'd be OK with that. If they want to cash in, then lift the ban on younger players and let them go pro. I'm not comfortable paying guys to play for a university.

[Busch1724]

I think pay for play would lead to more corruption, not lessen or end it. Some schools wouldn't be able to afford it. Most schools only football and basketball operate in the black. Hell from numbers I saw last year, many schools' basketball programs don't even operate in the black. The programs at most schools are funded by those two. As a result it does indirectly keep tuition rates down. I think pay for play would do two things: increase the haves and have nots due to finances and increase tuition rates for everyone.

I know the argument would be to cap the amount of pay, but really a lot of schools wouldn't be able to afford a minimum wage for their athletes. As a result what happens to Title IV?

[HOF44]

The programs at most schools are funded by those two. As a result it does indirectly keep tuition rates down. I think pay for play would do two things: increase the haves and have nots due to finances and increase tuition rates for everyone.

I can think of lots of things I'd like to keep the price down on, if only we could get the suckers that manufacture them to work for a fraction of their worth.

[endzone_dave]

Nobody is putting a gun to the players heads, they play college football because they get a free education and get an opportunity to get drafted into the NFL. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't be there.

If colleges decide to play the players, that's their choice, I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

[HOF44]

Nobody is putting a gun to the players heads, they play college football because they get a free education and get an opportunity to get drafted into the NFL. If it wasn't worth it, they wouldn't be there.

If colleges decide to play the players, that's their choice, I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Open the NFL up to anyone 18 or over and it would be fine. Not doing that gives some guys with marketable talent no choice but to make money for a University.

[mjah]

Pay them minimum wage for time spent at practice and games, which is pretty much the same as anyone else with a part-time job working for a university while they go to school.

This is a good plan. Of course, then the immediate wailing of "they don't get paid ENOUGH" and "why does an LSU QB only get paid the same amount as a Kansas QB" will begin. With the sole founding principle of college athletics violated, the high school money race will be on, with high school students hiring agents and negotiating salaries and signing bonuses with recruiters. If you thought there were too many college athletics departments operating in the red already, just wait.

Currently the boundary between paid and unpaid lies between college and pro. Paying college players is really just an exercise in resetting that boundary so it lies between high school and college instead. Imagine that: instead of trying to control the ethical behavior of a few hundred colleges, just wait until the money moves closer to the high schools. Then the problem will be controlling the ethical behavior of a few THOUSAND organizations. And with real money at stake, the scale of the shady-HS-recruiting problem will be far, far greater than it is today. I can only imagine the size and cost of the infrastructure needed to regulate big-money interactions on a scale 10x that of the NCAA bureaucracy today. Better pin our hopes on vaguely defined "economies of scale" because the regulatory arm of the new analogous "NHSAA" organization will have to be colossal in size.

I don't see that as an improvement of any kind over the current system. It seems that many fail to recognize this, but there exist in the world many highly valuable forms of compensation beyond present day cash in hand. Playing in college offers an education -- free to the many players who are most valuable to the team, which seems fair -- plus massive exposure to the NFL and NBA. That's the value proposition. True, most players don't go on to the pro leagues. On the other hand, players don't have to take the deal either. Nobody is forcing them to play games, for free or otherwise. The high-upside gamble plus free education IS the compensation; cash doesn't have to be a part of that. You take your shot, and the university takes a (big) net cut of the payoff.

I'll add that aside from the obvious fact that the fans aren't interested, nothing is fundamentally preventing paid minor leagues from existing and growing powerful enough to become the default destination for major fb/bb talent. That alone would take much of the money out of college athletics, while giving athletes the choice to either play for pay or play for education.

Having said all that, there is far too much money in college athletics. Paying players really doesn't solve anything, net. The only true fix is to get a time machine, go back in time by several decades, and put college athletics on a different not-for-profit path at the institutional level -- a path along which they also don't end up serving as free minor leagues for professional organizations.

A question for the let's-pay-the-college-kids crowd: Would there be a draft or lottery out of high school, just like the other pro leagues use to ensure a basic standard of fairness and semi-parity in player access per team over the years? If not, then how would you drive players fairly to schools and prevent massive concentrations of paid talent in this paid league?

[HOF44]

A question for the let's-pay-the-college-kids crowd: Would there be a draft or lottery out of high school, just like the other pro leagues use to ensure a basic standard of fairness and semi-parity in player access per team over the years? If not, then how would you drive players fairly to schools and prevent massive concentrations of paid talent in this paid league?

Depends, if the college player organized and formed a union and decided that a draft system would be acceptable then it could go that route. Short of that, no draft could exist, as it would be an illegal restriction on employment without a union including it as part of a labor agreement.

[The Evil Genius]

Pay them minimum wage for time spent at practice and games, which is pretty much the same as anyone else with a part-time job working for a university while they go to school.

I see no sign that this is going to happen any time soon.

Federal or State minimum wage?

:evilg:

[MissU28]

No, they already get to go to college for free, that is their payment

[Destino]

For football: Remove the NCAA ownership of players images and restrictions on payments players can receive from sponsors. Alternatively make the teams "employers" and force them to pay players what the free market demands.

I don't think this matter in other sports because there are other avenues to reach the pro leagues or not enough money being made for this to even matter.

[Predicto]

This is a good plan. Of course, then the immediate wailing of "they don't get paid ENOUGH" and "why does an LSU QB only get paid the same amount as a Kansas QB" will begin. With the sole founding principle of college athletics violated, the high school money race will be on, with high school students hiring agents and negotiating salaries and signing bonuses with recruiters. If you thought there were too many college athletics departments operating in the red already, just wait.

Currently the boundary between paid and unpaid lies between college and pro. Paying college players is really just an exercise in resetting that boundary so it lies between high school and college instead. Imagine that: instead of trying to control the ethical behavior of a few hundred colleges, just wait until the money moves closer to the high schools. Then the problem will be controlling the ethical behavior of a few THOUSAND organizations. And with real money at stake, the scale of the shady-HS-recruiting problem will be far, far greater than it is today. I can only imagine the size and cost of the infrastructure needed to regulate big-money interactions on a scale 10x that of the NCAA bureaucracy today. Better pin our hopes on vaguely defined "economies of scale" because the regulatory arm of the new analogous "NHSAA" organization will have to be colossal in size.

I don't see that as an improvement of any kind over the current system. It seems that many fail to recognize this, but there exist in the world many highly valuable forms of compensation beyond present day cash in hand. Playing in college offers an education -- free to the many players who are most valuable to the team, which seems fair -- plus massive exposure to the NFL and NBA. That's the value proposition. True, most players don't go on to the pro leagues. On the other hand, players don't have to take the deal either. Nobody is forcing them to play games, for free or otherwise. The high-upside gamble plus free education IS the compensation; cash doesn't have to be a part of that. You take your shot, and the university takes a (big) net cut of the payoff.

This whole post rests on the assumption that my idea would be implemented, and then immediately thrown out. I don't find that argument very compelling. :whoknows:

If the kids are paid minimum wage and treated like other student employees, there wouldn't be any economic incentive for all of those horrible things to happen. The money would be too little.

[thebluefood]

Treat them like other university employees: pay them at minimum wage for time spent at practice and distribute a share of the money made at the game. Also, give each player a share of whatever money the university makes through bowl games.

If we're going to pay athletes, that seems like a fair enough plan.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

No, they already get to go to college for free, that is their payment

exactly....tuition/room and board/meal plan totals are around $16k a year at UMD...that equals $64k in free school and housing/food for 4 years

[MissU28]

exactly....tuition/room and board/meal plan totals are around $16k a year at UMD...that equals $64k in free school and housing/food for 4 years

Plus they already get all sorts of perks/free stuff in addition to their tuition/room and board

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Plus they already get all sorts of perks/free stuff in addition to their tuition/room and board

my numbers werent even using UMD's out of state tuition fees either....which are 3 times the price of in-state tuition...they get a lot of free stuff, youre right. At UMD, all the athletes got clothing/shoes from UnderArmour...anything they wanted.

[ACW]

They won't be paid for playing games, ever. But the NCAA should compensate them for selling their likeness (meaning video games, jerseys, etc.)

I can get behind this. Selling your own jersey-boo! The SCHOOL selling your jersey: what problem.

[FanboyOf91]

No, it would be a fiscal disaster for most schools.

Lower the minimum age for entering the NFL. Time for the NFL to stop using college football as a cheap farm system.

[The Evil Genius]

Pay?

Why? So Trent Richardson can afford gas on his 2011 Yukon?

[Busch1724]

No, it would be a fiscal disaster for most schools.

Lower the minimum age for entering the NFL. Time for the NFL to stop using college football as a cheap farm system.

Being realistic here, the senior high school body upon graduation is not ready for the NFL pounding. Many college sophomore bodies aren't either, hence they stay another year or two.

[mjah]

This whole post rests on the assumption that my idea would be implemented, and then immediately thrown out. I don't find that argument very compelling. :whoknows:

If the kids are paid minimum wage and treated like other student employees, there wouldn't be any economic incentive for all of those horrible things to happen. The money would be too little.

Well, I'm not arguing against the idea of paying student-worker wages to student (athlete) workers.

But I do think that once the principle of paying student athletes is breached, the amount they get paid -- which is just a matter of degree -- would be an easier domino to topple.

Student workers are paid what they're paid because in most cases their labor isn't worth much. Student athletes are highly skilled and provide an insanely lucrative return against a theoretical minimum-wage salary. Market forces naturally would drive these salaries up, way up, unless constrained by externally applied regulation.

(Which, by virtue of regulating degree rather than hard principle, would IMO inevitably be relaxed over time as schools with the biggest names, budgets, and influence perpetually clamor for the best high school talent.)

I find that path not only a compelling possibility, but a very likely one over time. The "don't pay student athletes" point of view's biggest strength is a foundation build on the rock of principle, rather than the shifting sands of degree.