Most athletic departments break even at best. The NCAA, on the other hand, is making money hand over fist.
I can charge $10000 for one of my turds, but it doesn't mean it's worth it. Just because you're giving them a scholarship doesn't mean they're getting fairly compensated, nor does it make the NCAA's rules any less of a joke.
If they don't like their pay, then they can quit. Part of their compensation is an improved chance to play in the NFL if they do well. Option value...for you financially wise posters out there.
I would have less of an issue with this if the NCAA had not outlawed athletes working a job for pay during school. A good number of these athletes don't have money coming from home. You take away their ability to earn spending money while in school, it seems a little inequitable while they are part of the machine that generates hundreds of millions each year. It is rules like this that will cause the NCAA to lose the big five conferences soon. Those conferences will leave the NCAA and form their own regulatory body.
I'd go into it in person or in private but not in an open forum. Nothing jaw dropping, just a series of interesting stories and a unique perspective. None of the information I received was spun, there wasn't a judgmental angle to it at all, just straight up info. The funniest thing I took from it was "geez, if Johnny needed money all he had to do was ask, it's not hard to get connected with the right guys". Lulz.
I shouldve prefaced my previous comment exclusively to merchandise sold. While it can get really difficult trying to assess the net value of a given athlete to a program in terms of a monetary number, merchandise is something that can be accounted for. For example if you sell Manziel jersey for $50.00 with his name written on it, Manziel should be able to make some profit from the school for that jersey sold. You have to limit it to merchandise that bears the name of the student. The given percentage that should be for the school and the student can and should be negotiated by the school and their respective students. Once the student leaves the institution, transfers or graduates, the schools retain a 100%. The student only gets paid while he is a member of the institution and completes his education at the institution. Secondly, there is always going to be a discrepancy when it comes to a sport like Football. The Quarterback is the most marketable player when it comes to football. I have never denied the premise that his OLine is valuable to his success, but Manziel was the marketable piece that Texas A&M had. Next, the sales of jerseys alone would bring so much money to a given school. People would always have to buy new gear as different athletes come through the program. Donations and subsidies are meant to drive an athletic department to be able to give scholarships to students. But merchandise sold is a totally different animal. This is really the only place a student should be able to make money. If their name sells and they are a marketable asset, the school stands to make a lot of money. Jerseys, posters, mugs, blankets, whatever has the picture or name of a given athlete...it is things just like this that is what I believe a student should be compensated for. Finally, Just looking at it from a football perspective, school are really not losing money. In fact, football is a major cash cow for any given institution. If an athlete is marketable, they make much more than they would expect. If an athlete that they market flames out, thats on the university for making a bad business decision. Market players that will bring the university the most amount of sales etc. Besides, I dont buy the argument that a school is losing money from a sport like football.
College football jerseys don't have names on them. However, I believe Jay Bilas broke some kind of 'story' about typing in names on the NCAA's website which directs users to the corresponding numbered jerseys. Also, Manziel's jersey says 'FOOTBALL' on the back lol.
I know this... My point is to articulate that if a given merchandise does have a name, trademark, or picture of a given student athlete, the student and the institution should have equal right(basically 50/50) to the merchandise sold. This money would remain in an escrow till the student has completed his time at the institution. That amount would be given to him upon completion/graduation from the university. If he fails to complete his education, or transfers elsewhere, he risks losing all of the money when he leaves. For example, right now , if they decided to put Manziel's name on the back of the jersey, they should given him 50% of that sale. And anyone that uses the university logo and the student name, picture, trademarked nickname... would then be in violation of copyright laws, and would/should be prosecuted for it.
That's exactly what the largest football programs, and ostensibly their student athletes, are going to do. Quit the NCAA.
do you realize what an unfair advantage this would create when it comes to recruiting? you could basically have a booster tell a guy "hey, come play for Bama.. we'll buy 20k worth of your jerseys" in the end colleges would just be buying players, & i dont think any of us want to see that happen. imagine the Yankees, but in college football
........what? The Rules of the NCAA allow for academic scholarships. Those scholarships can be worth over $100,000 with room and board over a 4 year period. You have any $100,000 pieces of ****?
You can't look at football in a vacuum though. There are other sports out there that lose a lot of money, many of which they must have due to Title IX. Football and basketball subsidize those sports.
And the NCAA will not allow these student athletes to work to earn spending money. Yes their housing, meals and tuition are paid, but what about incidentals of life? What about stuff people buy all the time like clothing, shampoo, deodorant, a soda at the grocery store, etc etc etc? The scholarship does not provide for these things. That is why the large schools are pushing for a stipend.
Sure, want to buy some? Totally worth it bro. Trust me. Also, I'm the only turd supplier around, so don't bother going elsewhere.
I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention over the last 30 years, because that's the writing on the wall, loud and clear.
At the end of October 2011, the Division I Board of Directors approved a plan to allow up to a $2,000 "stipend" for college athletes with full (not partial) scholarships. It was overridden at the NCAA's annual convention in December 2011 (since it was passed by committee, it only needed 75 "no" votes to table it). Here is a link (starts on page 5 of the pdf) that lists the schools who signed on to override the veto. Two things to note. #1. The overwhelming majority of the oppose votes were cast from small budget, basketball-only schools (think Horizon League, MEAC, etc type schools). If the new division proposal is really just an attempt to cull the ranks of Division 1, these types of schools might be the ones being targeted. #2. The only FBS sponsoring schools to oppose the legislation at the time (2011) were: Boise St, Bowling Green St, ECU, Marshall, Miami (OH), Rice, Rutgers, and Wake Forest.
