John Oliver: March Madness and the Student Athlete

I'm not advocating for the current system.

But what's not to like with a pay for play system is it completely undermines the whole concept of college sports. It just becomes another professional league.

As major noted, it doesn't work for most college athletes who don't individually bring in any revenue.

Even more, the teams don't exist without the schools. It's the school system that is the backbone of it all. Otherwise you're just talking about a minor league... Which is prefer as noted. If the popularity doesn't exist without the schools then it's not really the athletes bringing in money, it's the system as a whole.

The question to me isn't do you pay the players. Maybe a little to live, certainly allow for jobs, etc. but the question is how to allocate the revenue as a whole.... Or how to fully break the school - team system.

 

Simple solution: let colleges pay salaries to athlete/student, uncapped.

Classes are optional, but their scholarship entitles them unlimited years of tuition and room/board to get their degrees.

One has got to think that the NBA and the NCAA have an under-the-table agreement that the NBA will not poach HSers for the D League. If not, this would be the new market inefficiency that people like Morey would exploit to the max.

 

Speaking of march madness, is CF doing a bracket challenge this year?

 

As Oliver pointed out. If you're for the so-called "concept of college sports" and the sanctity of amatuerism, then get rid of all the TV and endorsement deals. Otherwise that argument is a giant ball o' BS.

 

I wholeheartedly agree but it shouldn't be at public schools. You could argue that those values you listed would be much better gained at city/county/church leagues than at public schools where winning and money are put above all else. Public school coaches are paid and have to win to keep their jobs while church/city/county leagues are almost all volunteers and truly care about the players and their communities.

 

would take prosperity churches to a whole other level. :grin:

 

When companies start sponsoring those church/city/county leagues, the money will be put into the city/county/church and it'll be the same.

 

not sure what you're talking about, those community leagues already have sponsors and have for years. when i played little league many many years ago my jersey had some bail bonds store printed on the back. lol, i didn't grow up in the best neighborhood okay

also, the outfield was covered in signs and they still are. all of that money goes back into the league to help they stay afloat and help kids with uniforms, etc... there are no 6 figure payed coaches in any of those leagues unlike high school football coaches.

coaches who coach in those leagues volunteer their time (sometimes money too) and energy out of the passion for sports and kids. i had a lot a great role models growing up playing in those leagues. in fact the worst coaches i ever had, the big time assholes who didn't care at all about kids as individuals, were the ones that were in high school and were paid very well.

 

Sorry, I was thinking more on the lines of church/city/county leagues gathering the best players in the city or state for their respective sports which would attract the big sponsors.

 

As long as the NCAA brings in billions just like the NFL, it largely is just another professional league. As Donny pointed out, the concept of college sports you're talking about is already undermined by all the sponsorships and TV deals the NCAA has. The only difference between it and the NFL is the players get no cut of it, and risk injuries and their futures in the process. Throw in the fact that the players can't even profit off of their likeness while the NCAA can, and there's just no way around it. The system is a scam to the players.

 

I would like Oliver to look at how the NCAA "re-invests" the money. Easy to bash on the surface.

 

I agree with the premise... but disagree with the conclusion.

The issue isn't the generation of revenue, it's the allocation of it. At least in my mind.

Yes, there is certainly the issue of relative value. Do the athletes get the proper value in return for their investment of time, skill, whatever in the sport? I'd argue on the whole, yes. For the smaller group of top athletes, in top revenue generating sports, the answer appears to be no. And there are ways to improve upon that, I just don't think it's writing large paychecks to these athletes.

Just as the revenue doesn't exist without the athletes, the athletes don't exist without the program. Only in the select rare instances have athletes chose an alternative path.

Of course, the alternative path happens more frequently in baseball, where there is a legitimate minor league system.

On the whole, I'd be more interested in alternatives that focus on a variety of ways to better allocate the revenues, as opposed to just pay the athletes more. Like pay the coaches less, fund more to the school to perhaps in turn lower tuition for the rest of the student body or lower taxpayer funding of public institutions, donate more to charities or educational initiatives, etc. And to the extent that doesn't work with athletes that continue to believe they should be paid a lot of money as the "workforce" of the product, which I agree with, then go start your own minor league program.

The UT Longhorns football program doesn't exist without UT. The athletes can't generate revenue that they "unfairly" receive non of absent the educational part of the college experience in the first place.

My choice is probably a lose lose for everyone even if it worked out in the best example. Legitimate minor leagues are formed. College sports become way less important, and the schools, which are at least collecting some revenue now don't get any.

Which is why I suggested just completely stripping the student-athlete combo. Just make the teams "affiliated" with some sort of profit share agreement, and the teams then can choose to pay the players as it makes sense. In effect, a minor league, but keeping the team affiliations. No free scholarships for players.

 

This limey git trashes America every week and people love it. Like a funny version of Piers Morgan. Next week he'll tell us why apple pie is awful.

If the NCAA gives student athletes a raw deal, why do the students participate? Answer: it's effectively an unpaid internship to learn skills and demonstrate future potential as a paid professional. Or it's a way to get a degree with no/less tuition.

Clearly the NCAA offers enough value to the athletes to get them to come to the school, so why would they pay them on top of that?

Most of these students could go to the D-league and get compensation, but they choose not to. Why? Because they still believe college is the best place to showcase and develop their talent. And the draft bears that out.

That could change some day.

 

Couldn't find a better quality but loved how south park did an episode on the NCAA.

https://youtu.be/P2lSDetRrNk

 

That video game spoof at the end was hilarious. Especially them actually getting O'Bannon and Rose to comment.

I really need to watch more Oliver. I more or less just stick to what they put up online for free and skip the HBO subscription, but he's been so consistently excellent since getting the gig.

 

Money should go to taxes.... So it is an economic engine.

 

He did very well replacing Stewart for that period of time back on The Daily Show, but I think this suits him better. I like the one show per week approach more. Makes his material seem fresher each time.