See complete forecast
Vote or see results without voting.
Note: This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.
Copy and paste the link:
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
MY GOSH, THEY GET THEIR EDUCATION FOR NOTHING. LOOK AT THE OTHER STUDENTS WHO WERE NOT BLESSED TO BE GOOD ATHLETES. I BET THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME FREE HELP ON THEIR EDUCATION COSTS. IF THE NCAA SHOULD HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE MONIES, IT SHOULD GO TO ALL STUDENTS, NOT JUST ATHLETES.
Not only the education, but the vast majority of these kids that turn pro got much bigger contracts, or contracts they never would have gotten at all, by playing in college. And what they're asking for is the right to profit not on their name, but on their position as a star player for that school. If they didn't like the rules, they shouldn't have signed the paper.
So that makes it OK to exploit them for millions of dollars. Interesting logic...
The logic (that seems to be escaping you) is that the players were exploiting the school, too. It's a two-way street. They're not asking for the right to make money off their name or their image - they're asking to make money off their name and image as an athlete wearing the school's uniform. It's a two-way street.
Most of these guys that went pro increased their income potential dramatically by their years playing NCAA sports. An NBA lottery pick might have added a couple of million dollars per year to his entire career by having the opportunity to be developed by that coach, to get the exposure of playing for that school. Where's the school's cut of that money?
If the school makes an average of $2000 per seat across 16300 seats for an entire season (which is lowballing it, that's $2000 divided by every home game) - KU sells out every game - that's $32.6 million. In addition, advertising for the tournament, for the home and away games, for the broadcasts - TV subsidies - luxury seats - concessions - athletic donors...
So, the NCAA's cut of that money is in that the players generate that revenue, but only the coach gets paid.
On the other hand, those aren't the ones the NCAA is making money on by licensing their image.
Lots of kids "get their education for nothing", not just athletes. And lots of kids get free help with their education costs. And I shouldn't have to remind anyone that almost no kids who get athletic scholarships will go pro as athletes, although that ought to be a no-brainer here in this town.
But these other non-athletic-scholarship/grant kids don't have the restrictions on their outside opportunities that athletes do. By that I mean athletes' opportunities to earn income both during and before college.
The current NCAA system might have made sense before college athletics became big business. But, now that at least some athletic departments have set themselves up as autonomous juggernauts, with college president and chancellors feeling powerless to stop them, I think it's a good time for a lawsuit to force "college athletics" to come to grips with the fact that, no matter what fans clamor for, winning is NOT everything, and these athletes...and their schools...deserve better.
Heck...google 'university of kansas athletics'. Then look at the #1 result...which is for the official KU athletics department website.
It says "The University of Kansas Official Athletic Site, partner of CBS College Sports Networks, Inc"!!!!!
And you don't think we have a problem???
I remember Curt Flood and his 1970 lawsuit against MLB's reserve clause. And how many fans were furious with him at the time. The thought that he should be able to make $$ as he saw fit and "betray" his team enfuriated them.
Yes, I realize the difference between pro and "amateur" sports. Unfortunately, I don't think the NCAA understands the difference. I mean, the NCAA argues that "student-athletes are prohibited from receiving payment for participating in sports"...when it's the NCAA itself that prohibits them! And I 'love' the use of former college athletes' images without either their permission or compensation...while the NCAA licenses their use for $$$.
In the end, though, I didn't have to sign away my rights when I got my free non-athletic ride to college, so why should student-athletes?
"And I 'love' the use of former college athletes' images without either their permission"
They gave their permission. They agreed to the terms. They didn't have to play for the NCAA if they didn't want to, and the benefit to their income was rather significant.
Let 'em be content with the under-the-table payments from boosters.
haha I was thinking this exact same thing. I used to work at Best Buy, and I can't tell you how many days I saw the players come and buy playstations, etc, TV's, and expensive equipment with HUGE gift cards. Hmmm, wonder how they got those!?
The free full-ride scholarships provided to college athletes are anything but free. They involve being at the university year-round. The exhausting physical work amounts to a full time job. An athlete is not allowed to earn any income while enrolled in school. I saw other students with money they had earned and as an athlete I didn't have the same privilege. Contact sports take a physical toll on one's body that must be dealt with for the rest of one's life. For instance, later today I'm getting a total knee replacement . I also had several other surgeries as a result of the time I "played" college sports. Everyone seems to make money in intercollegiate sports except the athlete.
I'm pretty sure athletes are allowed to be employed. It's the fact that they don't have the time to be employed due to the practice schedules, travel time, tutoring, class (if they go...), and so on. Also, another area that may turn some heads is the fact that athletes will get jobs and then be paid ridiculous amounts of money. Remember Rhett Bomar from Oklahoma years ago working at the car dealership?
I did work with a girl on the KU rowing team, so an athlete can in fact work and be in compliance with the NCAA.
$2000 a year. $166.67 a month. Hope you don't like having a car, or hell, even eating.
"An athlete is not allowed to earn any income while enrolled in school. "...
I don't believe this is a true statement. There may be limitations on the amount earned, but I'm not positive.
Athletes are not allowed to be employed while in school. Is the rowing team at KU possibly a club team? And jayhawk....do you know how many athletes actually turn pro? I don't know an exact number but I would bet it is less than 1%.
"And jayhawk....do you know how many athletes actually turn pro? I don't know an exact number but I would bet it is less than 1%. "
But then, the other 99% don't get their face in a video game, and the NCAA doesn't sell 100,000 copies of their jersey.
...of which they get ZERO $$$ for having their face in that video game or their name on a jersey. So what's your point? The NCAA makes even more money off them of which they get none?
"of which they get ZERO $$$ for having their face in that video game or their name on a jersey."
Uh - maybe if you re-read my post? Particularly the part that says "the other 99% DON'T get their face in a video game, and the NCAA doesn't sell 100,000 copies of their jersey"? [emphasis added]
Name for me another business that can bring in $16.4 million in operational revenue on the school level, plus about $10 million in shared revenue - and doesn't have to pay its staff. Since your argument is that some players go pro and their income is greatly heightened as a result, what about the 99% of people who don't make revenue for the NCAA but also don't go on to pro athletics? They still can't earn more than $2000 per year while in school (I made $18-24k each year in school)...
That other 99% aren't generating the $16.4 million in operational revenue or the $10 million in shared revenue, are they? Or did I miss the story in the news that CBS would only pay the billions of dollars for broadcast rights to the NCAA basketball tournament if the NCAA threw in the rights for fencing and cross-country along with it?
So then you agree that the NCAA should share their revenues or rid itself of the rule saying that student athletes cannot hold jobs?
I'm curious as to how you could possibly have twisted anything I've said so much that you came to that conclusion.
Well, you're saying that the NCAA doesn't make revenue off the student-athletes, in general, and that the student-athletes cannot make money off their own images, in general.
Thus, they should be able to hold a job, right?
That wasn't the question you asked - you put it as an 'either or" question, and I've been pretty plain that I don't agree with the option of revenue sharing.
As far as jobs go: The problem is primarily one of compliance. There's a good summary of some of the considerations involved in this article I found:
From my understanding, the $2000 limit is not a set amount, it's on a school-by-school basis as to what the consider "incidental expenses". Also, the rule appears to apply only to Div I scholarship players, those already getting a free ride (tuition, fees, room and board, books, etc.). Someone on the bowling team can still work. (I'd have to look up the exact rule and frankly I'm not that interested - if you want to take the time, I'm pretty sure the NCAA's rulebook is online.)
Besides the issues of compliance mentioned in the article, one other problem I see is the time requirements. Again, we're primarily talking about basketball and football players, who have a tremendous workload associated with their sport. The schools are giving them quite a bit to play for them - what was the amount of money that women's basketball player from Oklahoma promised to pay back if they lost to UConn (which they did, and she didn't)? If the school's giving them $30-40 thousand per year worth tuition, room and board, etc., they have a right to say hey, your job is interfering with practice time or your performance on the court/field.
On re-scanning the article, it does appear the rule applies to non-scholarship players, too. However, the issues of compliance and time constraints still apply.
Also, nobody forced the kids to compete in a sport. It's their choice.
Or maybe it is just scholarship players - the article isn't too clear. I tried browsing the NCAA rulebook, but couldn't find it and don't really want to take the time. Anyone that wants to, here's the book:
couldn't they just get student loans for the rest of it, like other students do who don't want to work or still can't afford to live on what they make?
$20,000 a year is not a "small" sustenance. NCAA athletes on full scholarships have most of their expenses taken care of, so the stipends being talked about would be spending money. You're saying a kid needs $20k in spending money just to get through a year?
Apartment, food, college etc is pennies in comparison. Everyone chastises pro athletes when they go on "lockout" but they too (in some instances, not all) are not being compensated for how much money they bring in.
I'm not saying athletes have it rough, but they are getting the raw-end of the deal.
Nobody made them go to college or play for the team.
Notajayhawk.....were you possibly one of the last ones picked to play at recess?
Kind of expected around here, Defender
I don't suppose you have anything interesting to say to address the point I made?
Didn't think so.
BTW, were you possibly one of the ones who didn't get to go pro? And then figured out maybe he should have studied more?
Are they not getting paid enough as it is? Most of them drive brand new SUV's with the big wheels, got three and four tatoo's and wear the best clothing money can buy. Dang fools play a game for a university and get paid more in a week than I do in 3 weeks and I consider myself to make pretty decent money.
Is there an EA Sports college bowling game?
The athletic department pull in a lot of revenue from cross country, does it?
The point is that the ones that are bringing the money in are already benefiting. The ones that aren't getting anything out of the deal aren't generating the revenues, either.
And he didn't say "most student athletes", he said "most of them". It depends on who the "them" referred to. I don't see a lot of the bowling team or cross country runners sporting lots of tribal tats.
If he was talking about most of the student athletes, then I agree with you, it was an extreme over exaggeration. If the "them" he was talking about is the former athletes that are suing the NCAA because their images are being used in video games, then it wasn't.
"When he used them, i inferred he was talking about the same people he brings up in the next sentence when he says "Dang fools play a game for a university and get paid more in a week than I do in 3 weeks""
The smaller group I referred to would be part of that larger group, which would make the statement consistent. It would be like referring to officers only when referring to a group of military personnel, and saying 'Danged fools get paid to wear a uniform and carry a gun'.
Or he was talking about the players who will be in next year's edition of the video game.
I apologize for not getting back to you last night jayhawk.....unfortunately I can't spend my entire day on here posting because I turned the education I received while playing college ball into a job. No, I didn't turn pro and no I don't wish I had spent more time studying as I had a great college experience. Here's something for you jayhawk....athletes who want to turn pro in basketball are forced to wait one year after graduating high school. The most logical step is to enroll in college....tell me what other profession doesn't allow you to work if you are deemed ready? Another thought....baseball and football have a rule that if you enroll in a NCAA university you must attend for 3 years before being elgible to be drafted. So to make this simple for you jayhawk....the NCAA is forcing the student athlete to play for free for the university instead of turning pro. All the while making millions of dollars off the hard work and talents of the athlete. But what do I know? I don't post 3,000 times a day from morning until night.
I think many in the future will follow Brandon Jennings to Europe and give the proverbial finger to US colleges...
"So to make this simple for you jayhawk....the NCAA is forcing the student athlete to play for free for the university instead of turning pro."
No problem, I slept fine not hearing from you.
"unfortunately I can't spend my entire day on here posting because I turned the education I received while playing college ball into a job."
Really? No kiddin'. Good for you. I did the same with my education - but my job apparently allows me a little more free time and access to a computer.
"tell me what other profession doesn't allow you to work if you are deemed ready?"
Since you're so busy and all, have someone look up the word "internship" for you.
"Another thought....baseball and football have a rule that if you enroll in a NCAA university you must attend for 3 years before being elgible to be drafted. So to make this simple for you jayhawk....the NCAA is forcing the student athlete to play for free for the university instead of turning pro."
The operable word there being "if". They don't have to go to college at all, do they? Funny you mentioned baseball, since most MLB players didn't go to college and even fewer graduated. A recent story in the WSJ found 26 players (out of over 1200) - including managers - that have college degrees.
"All the while making millions of dollars off the hard work and talents of the athlete."
I know this question was phrased a bit broadly. And I'm sure, that with the many responsibilities of your job, you probably didn't have time to read the related stories. But this isn't about the money they get from ticket sales or TV contracts. It's about the NCAA making a lot of money licensing the names and images of a select few star players that appear in such things as video games and on merchandise such as replica jerseys. Those select few players DID make it to the pros and got million-dollar contracts, else the NCAA wouldn't have made much money on the licensing, would they? You think the NCAA sells a lot of replica jerseys carrying the name of some second-string special teams utility player from a 75th-ranked school? The players that the NCAA is making all this licensing money on did quite well from the bargain.
As for the rest, they aren't the ones bringing in all the big bucks, are they? I've never seen a college baseball game on TV other than the college world series, and somehow doubt there are tens of thousands of paying fans at the games on a regular basis. And something tells me the NCAA isn't looking for ways to spend the billions of dollars it rakes in from cross-country, lacrosse, softball, water polo, fencing, etc. The players in those sports have no entitlement to the revenues brought in by football and basketball (where virtually all the money comes from).
And yes, I realize that a Heisman trophy candidate can't go out there and play by himself, there still has to be 11 players on the field at a time for his school and there's a large supporting cast. But the networks that pay billions of dollars for broadcast rights aren't scheduling games on their networks because of that supporting cast, no matter how good overall they are. The networks can pay that much because they can sell commercials, they can sell commercials because the ratings are there, the ratings are there because - wait for it - they broadcast the games featuring those Heisman candidates, and the teams that have a shot at the bowl games, where yes, there will be a few players making it to the pros.
And basketball? Let's look at a player like Rip Hamilton as an example. He played three years for UConn, and oddly enough that's around when the Huskies started to become regulars on the networks in the nationally-televised games. And UConn merchandise with his name and uniform number are still selling, eleven years later. So yes, the NCAA made some money off him.
Hamilton played HS ball in Pennsylvania, at the same time as this kid in another part of the state named 'Bryant' (maybe you heard of him). Hamilton's a great player - but he was not going to get a multi-million dollar contract out of HS like his cross-state rival. His three years at UConn, not to mention leading them to their first national championship, is what made him a lottery pick. To say that he wasn't compensated for his years playing in college, or that he didn't benefit far more financially than the NCAA did from his years there is ridiculous.
And yes, there were a lot of other players wearing Huskies uniforms during those televised games.
Seen any of their faces in a video game lately?
OK Jayhawk....an internship is to prepare an individual or to evaluate whether an individual is ready or able to perform a job, it is not for those people who have the skills, experience, and ability already to perform the job. I'm sure the stats about the baseball players having degrees may be true, but many of these players leave college early or skip it entirely to pursue a MLB contract. What it doesn't mention is that many of these players, I have personally known several, sign contracts to play professionally that include college tuition being paid for if they don't make it in the pros and need to go back to school. College baseball is on TV throughout the spring if you pay attention, which you obviously don't. Another thing about baseball....they have a minor league system which allows a player time to develop, something the NBA and NFL don't have. The NBA and NFL use the NCAA as a player development league. So if a person has aspiration of playing professionally then the NCAA has been the most logical step to getting there. Yes players like Rip Hamilton benefit from their time in the NCAA, but until recently they have had very few options. With Europe now becoming a more viable options for basketball players I am sure we will begin to see many high schoolers decide to skip the college experience and go to Europe where they can make money.
"an internship is to prepare an individual or to evaluate whether an individual is ready or able to perform a job"
Yeah. Kinda' like college for an athlete.
"it is not for those people who have the skills, experience, and ability already to perform the job"
The preparation and skills may be there for some players. The opportunity to evaluate those skills and that preparation is not. The NFL does not scout high school games. MLB does, and they'll take the kids straight from there. The NBA does scout high school players, but whether that's a fair evaluation of their skills, playing against other high school players, is debatable.
"I'm sure the stats about the baseball players having degrees may be true, but many of these players leave college early or skip it entirely to pursue a MLB contract."
Actually, many of them were drafted out of high school, and went to college instead.
"College baseball is on TV throughout the spring if you pay attention, which you obviously don't."
I don't get the local Lawrence cable stations. Or the college TV stations.
Ya' think the NCAA is making billions off the local broadcast rights to those games, do ya'?
"The NBA and NFL use the NCAA as a player development league. So if a person has aspiration of playing professionally then the NCAA has been the most logical step to getting there."
Gee, sounds like an internship.
"So if a person has aspiration of playing professionally then the NCAA has been the most logical step to getting there."
"Most logical" is not the same thing as "mandatory", is it?
You have, whether you meant to or not, made the exact point I have repeatedly stated through this thread: The athletes go to play in college because it's in their own best interests. It's the best option for them to possibly make it to the pros and earn a great living. It won't work out for all of them, of course, but it's their choice, it's their gamble.
Again, the story that prompted this poll was about a few select players whose name and likenesses the NCAA marketed in such things as video games and merchandise. As I said earlier, the ones the NCAA is licensing those products on are the ones that made it.
"The athletes go to play in college because it's in their own best interests. It's the best option for them to possibly make it to the pros and earn a great living."
Cool, for football and basketball (and baseball to a lesser extent). Bowling, cross country, golf? Basketball at lower division schools where they reasonably won't make the pros?
"Bowling, cross country, golf? Basketball at lower division schools where they reasonably won't make the pros?"
Again: Those aren't the kids making the money for the NCAA. And the lower division athletes aren't proscribed from working, only Div I athletes.
If they are going to start paying the players (which they already are under the table) then they should take USC off probation, and Reggie Bush should keep the heisman
If they paid the players, it would be an admission of what the whole program is about: money. This is a business operation and little else. Sure the kids get some classes, discipline and coaching that can help them later in life, but it's tiny compensation for the work they're expected to perform and for the millions they generate.
"Some of these athletes go on to make similar or even more money than the people (ncaa) who exploit them but that is a small percentage."
It is, however, that small percentage that's generating the vast majority of the revenues.
do u think coach Self will respond...?
yes,...then they can pay taxes for that money like the rest of us working stiffs....cough it up....!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·