John Oliver: March Madness and the Student Athlete

Because the NCAA makes no sense in a variety of areas.

The fact that dudes can't even make money off of their own likeness while the NCAA can is easily the silliest part of the whole thing.

 

There are a ton of ways to fix this broken system, but the first step is getting through to the idiots who don't believe the system is broken in the first place. Chase Budinger and I both went to Arizona during the same time period. Tell me he got a better education experience than I did by being an athlete, I beg of you explain to me how he was rewarded at Arizona (not in the NBA) for his work for that team. If the NCAA exists to shuttle players to the NBA, pay the guys. If it exists to foster student athletes, make them students first athletes second. You can't pick and choose from those combos.

 

Considering the player is 18 when entering the D-League and assuming his high school class has graduated, there is nothing preventing him from entering the NBA draft after one year in the D-League.

 

You're also assuming players know what they are getting into before they start. Before I started graduate school I thought I would have a life. I think if more players actually knew what the hours are like, and that their degrees are a sham they would go to the D-league.

 

Regardless of whether or not the athletes get paid, how much do they get paid? Does the female soccer player get as much as the male all american QB? Do they take all of the revenue generated, mostly from men's football and basketball, and distribute it evenly over the rest of the sports? Do they take the excess revenue from each sport and distribute it equally among all the players (e.g. 6th string safety makes as much as the first string RB) in that particular sport? Does the TSU QB make as much as the Alabama QB? Will Notre Dame be able to pay their players more than Alcorn State?

 

I agree, it's complicated. Instead of paying athletes, why not set up a scholarship and healthcare fund. Make it so that even if an athlete has a career ending injury, he/she can still pursue a degree and not lose his/her scholarship. Of course, you can limit the term length of that scholarship, but make it so that if an athlete wanted to turn around and get a degree in biology, chemistry, physics, etc he or she can do so if their professional career dreams are dashed by injury. Also, give these kids healthcare in the same way some pro sports do post injury. I think that's a fair compromise.

 

Because someone is willing to pay him.

No one is forcing them to flee the country. They can work anywhere that thinks they are worth being paid. The problem is that that a random 17 yr old basketball player has very little market value.

Because musicians can do it independently. They are not part of a league. It's like asking why you're not allowed to be the CEO of Facebook.

 

They should definitely get a stipend... equivalent to what other work-study students get paid.

They put in a lot more time with practice/travel than other work-study students end up having to do.

Most of the issues present are the kids that literally have no money for food unless they work another job on top of playing for the team and being a student at the school.

 

I thought this was resolved with the Big 5 splitting out thing? I was under the impression - at least in football - that the students would be getting a stipend or some type of scholarship increase to cover all those extra expenses.

 

I don't think it is as complicated as people make it out to be. They set a "per diem" rate based upon the division size, Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, etc. The sport should not matter. It is hard to juggle any athletics program with a college education, not just the two that make most of the money (football and basketball). Paying every student athlete $50-100 a week isn't going to break the bank for most division 1 schools.

They then create trusts for those students who want to continue their education beyond their scholarships or undergraduate degrees, and the amount they earn is based upon their years of service as a student athlete.

 

Many NCAA players in revenue sports have tremendous market value, however a cartel helps artificially sets their wages at zero via the student athlete fiction, in order to siphon their value to others.

 

Only a tiny fraction of NCAA athletes have any real individual value - the vat majority are completely replaceable. If they didn't play, no one would know the difference and the NCAA's revenues would be completely unaffected.

But regardless, those athletes - at least in basketball - have the option to play in other leagues if they see more value in those alternatives. But they are still choosing the NCAA, which means either (a) they are idiots or (b) they see the total value of what they are getting (college experience, potential degree, room & board, training facilities, exposure, etc) to be worth more than the total value of what they get get in the market-paying options like the D-League, Europe, etc.

 

Once other leagues start recruiting and have the resources that the colleges have to "put on a show" for the prime athletes out of HS, they may very well choose those leagues, which will burst the NCAA bubble (the cash cows go elsewhere, which will affect the NCAA revenues like you said).

 

Certainly could be true - that's the market in action and a more competitive labor market is always good for labor. I'm just saying that as of now, it's hard to argue that NCAA is cheating the athletes when they are all choosing what the NCAA offers over the leagues that do pay current market value. The NCAA may not pay as much, but they offer other things that the players clearly want and prefer.

 

There's just not a lot of viable other options right now... the D-league is still in its infancy, and Europe is a huge life-changing decision. If you polled student-atheltets, they would probably prefer to get compensated for what they do, so you're a bit facetious when you're claiming that the players "clearly want and prefer" the current system.

And when you're talking about an entity as a "free market" enterprise... its constituents deserve to get compensated for their labor.

The NCAA doesn't pay athletes right now because they've never had to... but as their revenues will continue to sky-rocket, something will have to change.

 

Im sure Adam Silver is hoping the D - League addresses this very situation, but why isnt there a more active marketing campaign to draw post-high school graduates to this opportunity?

For example, let this be a following D - League Salary for Team X -
Year 1 salary: $50,000
Year 2 salary: $55,000
Year 3 salary: $60,000
Year 4 salary: $65,000

Players that enter the D- League have a max 4 year eligibility (Basically they can earn 4 D - League contracts max). During that time, they could show case their abilities/talents as athletes and perhaps be eligible for the NBA draft. If some of these athletes want to attain a corresponding education, that would be done on their own time. Players could get their own licenses and private marketing revenue streams.

 

Even then this is only an option for a tiny fraction of all college athletes. Only about 3.3% of high school athletes make it to NCAA sports. Going further, only 1.2% of NCAA athletes reach the professional levels... and even more contrasting is only .03% of athletes make the jump from high school to professional.

SOURCE: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Probability-of-going-pro-methodology_Update2013.pdf

On average, out of 18,000 NCAA athletes per year, only 216 make it to the pros.