I listened to a recording of former athletes and a few numbers guys talking about unions in college athletics and how student athletes should be compensated on Huffington Post. To say I am surprised by what I heard would be a lie, but it did give me quite a few things to consider in the debate.
I have always sided on the purity of college sports, but I do understand this is a gross misrepresentation. There is nothing pure about the modern athletic endeavors of a college, but there never has been. Most of the rivalries college teams use, and in many cases the mascots, are deeply rooted in history. This is what makes this sport great. Knowing Michigan pride on being called wolverines coincides with its disdain for people from Ohio over the battle for Toledo; realizing why Mizzou and Kansas will never like each other because of the battle between free states and slave states; understanding Georgia Tech chose gold for a school color as an intentional insult to the University of Georgia are only three of numerous instances that make people cheer on Saturdays in the fall. And all of this comes at a price.
The jersey you see in the photo to the right of this blog was bought with the same intent it was sold: to honor star Georgia Tech receiver Calvin Johnson. One of the ideas presented on the recording is that a portion of profits from items such as these should be saved in an account for student athletes to collect once they graduate, or used to complete a degree once the pro career doesn't work out as they dreamed. I would support this fully. If schools continue to sell a player's jersey the day after he or she has graduated, that athlete should receive a portion of the profits. However, I cannot under any circumstances support the idea of paying athletes just because they "make" money for a school.
No one disputed Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College and author of "Unpaid Professionals," when he said at the FBS, athletic revenue makes up at most 10 percent of a schools profits. This dispels a notion that schools would suffer financially if they didn't have an athletic department, which is an argument most people claim. Yael Averbuch, member of the U.S. national soccer team, simply stated she tailored her athletics around being a student in an effort to become a professional athlete. She admitted she didn't know the numbers behind paying athletes, but did say she felt like an employee, which to me sounds like a choice she made, not a school requirement.
I understand most student athletes are not on full scholarship, but I asked a former FCS football player if he ever went hungry. He said no. He cited a 7-3 principle, which means he is entitled to three meals a day, seven days a week. This is a provision for food allowances included in the NCAA bylaws (16.5.2 on page 210), and it can be greater than what a school lists as its maximum cost for meals for regular students. One thing I do not agree with in the bylaws is student-athletes who do not receive athletic financial aid are not covered under many meal provisions, unless they have a meal plan with the school. However, according to the bylaws, additional supplements and certain snacks are already provided to the student-athlete at his or her request.
The former football player said he actually feels blessed because unlike many college grads he knows, including his wife, he doesn't have to worry about student loans: never has and never will. He said everything he needed was taken care of: housing, school books, and especially tuition. Assuming this policy has not changed at the school he graduated from, a student-athlete with a full-ride, whose major require 120 credit to obtain a degree, taking 12 credits for 10 semesters at Georgia Southern (completely FBS beginning the fall of 2014), made over $30,000. This total does not include room and board, meal plans, books and the other peripheral necessary costs of attending school. Regardless, most star athletes are full-scholarship players at their respective schools, meaning the do not pay for their college except by committing to their studies and their sport. If they can't understand how they are already paid, then they, as with Averbuch, are going for a shot in the pros: something Scott Jennings with the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY says only 2 percent of student athletes achieve.
One thing that all four of the panelists agreed on is there needs to be changes and reform in the NCAA. I concur.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The Debate on Paying College Athletes- The Cost of Academics
The world of college athletics may be headed for a major schism if Northwestern University doesn't win an appeal, and its football players vote in favor of a union. For many who believe that only a select few schools should be eligible for a national championship, a vote in favor of a union representing college athletes is nothing more than a backdoor step in that direction. For those who believe athletes are abused because they make so much money for their college and the schools don't give them a stipend, it is pretty apparent they have read more headlines than they have researched facts.
In today's information age, it is a surprise that people don't search for the numbers showing how little athletes receive. If they took the time to research this topic, they would find the average college student is abused by its school, for the benefit of the student athlete. As tuition costs continue to rise at schools across the nation, the amount of money given to an athletic department has grown at a faster pace, than what is allotted to the education of an average full-time college student.
The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics created a database with the financial data from public schools across FBS football between 2005 and 2012; private schools, such as Northwestern, are not required to report such findings. The data shows the spending at colleges and universities, in an effort to encourage transparency in how money is used by athletic departments in comparison to the mission of their respective schools: educating students. You can look at the average amount of costs for educating a full-time student, how much a school or government entity allots for athletics at the school, the operating costs of the athletic department per student athlete, and the operating costs for the athletic department for each scholarship football player. It also breaks it down by conference, and even school.
In 2012: the SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Big XII institutional funding per student athlete was less than educating costs per full-time student. The Big Ten actually cut institutional and government funding for athletic departments by 45 percent between 2005 and 2012. In the PAC-12, Big East, and all of the remaining conferences, academic costs per full-time student was less than funding per student athlete. In Conference USA, the cost for educating a student actually dropped, whereas the other three categories grew. In no case, did any of these categories come close to athletic spending per athlete, and the amount of money spent on scholarship football players was even more for each conference. The SEC showed a 101 percent increase in operating costs for each scholarship football player: $262,486 in 2012.
Even though Northwestern is a private school, it is a member of the Big Ten. The Big Ten average for institutional spending per athlete was $2,592; average academic costs per full-time student was $18,606; average athletic department operating costs per student athlete was $130,835; average athletic department spending per scholarship football player was $213,987.
Self-sustaining athletic departments were discussed in a previous blog. Pennsylvania State University, The Ohio State University, Purdue University and Nebraska University were four of seven schools who fall under this category, meaning they do not rely on institutional funding to support the athletic departments. Penn State's numbers were not available, but Purdue was the only school where educating costs increased more than institution spending on athletes, and costs increased more than the average FBS program.
Though it is not considered self-sustaining, Wisconsin increased academic spending more than athletes, but it was just over half the average FBS program. Indiana, Iowa and Michigan actually increased athletic spending by more than the FBS average of 77 percent. Iowa increased athletic spending by 92 percent, and academic spending by 44 percent: both more than the average FBS program.
In today's information age, it is a surprise that people don't search for the numbers showing how little athletes receive. If they took the time to research this topic, they would find the average college student is abused by its school, for the benefit of the student athlete. As tuition costs continue to rise at schools across the nation, the amount of money given to an athletic department has grown at a faster pace, than what is allotted to the education of an average full-time college student.
The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics created a database with the financial data from public schools across FBS football between 2005 and 2012; private schools, such as Northwestern, are not required to report such findings. The data shows the spending at colleges and universities, in an effort to encourage transparency in how money is used by athletic departments in comparison to the mission of their respective schools: educating students. You can look at the average amount of costs for educating a full-time student, how much a school or government entity allots for athletics at the school, the operating costs of the athletic department per student athlete, and the operating costs for the athletic department for each scholarship football player. It also breaks it down by conference, and even school.
In 2012: the SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Big XII institutional funding per student athlete was less than educating costs per full-time student. The Big Ten actually cut institutional and government funding for athletic departments by 45 percent between 2005 and 2012. In the PAC-12, Big East, and all of the remaining conferences, academic costs per full-time student was less than funding per student athlete. In Conference USA, the cost for educating a student actually dropped, whereas the other three categories grew. In no case, did any of these categories come close to athletic spending per athlete, and the amount of money spent on scholarship football players was even more for each conference. The SEC showed a 101 percent increase in operating costs for each scholarship football player: $262,486 in 2012.
Even though Northwestern is a private school, it is a member of the Big Ten. The Big Ten average for institutional spending per athlete was $2,592; average academic costs per full-time student was $18,606; average athletic department operating costs per student athlete was $130,835; average athletic department spending per scholarship football player was $213,987.
Self-sustaining athletic departments were discussed in a previous blog. Pennsylvania State University, The Ohio State University, Purdue University and Nebraska University were four of seven schools who fall under this category, meaning they do not rely on institutional funding to support the athletic departments. Penn State's numbers were not available, but Purdue was the only school where educating costs increased more than institution spending on athletes, and costs increased more than the average FBS program.
Though it is not considered self-sustaining, Wisconsin increased academic spending more than athletes, but it was just over half the average FBS program. Indiana, Iowa and Michigan actually increased athletic spending by more than the FBS average of 77 percent. Iowa increased athletic spending by 92 percent, and academic spending by 44 percent: both more than the average FBS program.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
The Debate on Paying College Players- The Basics
On April 25, football players at Northwestern University will have the chance to make college athletics history. They have the chance for a vote that would appear to move college sports forward, but might actually be a death knoll for the sport: the vote to be represented by a union.
The decision came in March, and since then, officials at Northwestern University have tried to appeal the ruling, saying that college football players are students first, and in no way are they employees of the school. Keep in mind, this is a private school, so public universities in Illinois would not necessarily be affected by a decision.
Soon after this ruling, the house in the Ohio Legislature passed a measure saying college athletes are not employees, but in Connecticut, a measure says they have the right to unionize. Even for someone who follows this relatively closely, the debate is a hot topic where few people have all the facts and most moves are made based on emotion.
One issue that keeps arising is how much money student athletes, mainly football and basketball players, make for their university and the NCAA. USA Today reports in 2012, $504 million was sent to 228 Division I member schools: just over $2.2 million per school. Of the 228, only about 10 percent of college athletic departments actually make money. Athletic departments are funded by the money sports generate through ticket sales, merchandise and funds from the NCAA distributed to the member schools. However, even members of that 10 percent, which might be considered "self-sustaining," rely on subsidies from the school and government entities. Only seven schools on the list do not rely on a subsidy, but 76 percent of schools calculate subsidies as 50 percent or more of their revenue. Subsidies at Cincinnati and Oregon State, two schools in the FBS "Big Six Conferences", are comprised of just over 33 and 31 percent of their revenue, respectively.
Data compiled by USA Today for 2011 shows the lowest revenue-generating school on the list, University of New Orleans, had almost $3 million in expenses. Not including subsidies, such as student fees and government funding, the school made less than one million dollars. Including the subsidies, they were just under $150k in the clear. Assuming men's basketball is the money sport at the school, and this "surplus" were divided equally between 12 team sports, that's just over $12K per sport. Seventeen basketball players could theoretically get an additional $712 each. Basketball practices, according to NCAA regulations, can start in September. If the team makes it to the NCAA championship, that's an additional three dollars a day for seven months.
At Texas, which does not use subsidies, athletics are just over $2.5 million in the clear. Sixteen sports could split the extra money: $1, 564,087.81 each. Their football roster has 98 players, and in theory each player could receive an additional $15,960.08. At about eight months, including spring and regular season football, that's $66.50 per day. Remember, this number is only one of 7 self-sustaining schools, and represents the most any student could get because Texas had the greatest difference in revenue minus expenses.
Under basic definitions, college athletes could be employees: they have a contract to play a sport at a university, and in turn, that university provides reasonable compensation for the student's choice to play a sport. Simply put; said school covers student's education expenses including room and board as well as meals, student plays sport for school and complies with the rules of the NCAA. Perhaps students need to form a labor union; representation that looks out for their interests as a whole, to include managing compensation, hours worked, working conditions, etc.
According to the NCAA website, Division I and II schools provide over $2 billion dollars in scholarships for over 126,000 student athletes, which means an average of $15, 873 per student. Some students receive more, others receive less, because it is a coach's decision based on how much a school can provide in a certain sport. Many student athletes receive partial funds that do not cover the full cost of college attendance.
To sum this up, paying college players is not something the sport can afford at this time.
The decision came in March, and since then, officials at Northwestern University have tried to appeal the ruling, saying that college football players are students first, and in no way are they employees of the school. Keep in mind, this is a private school, so public universities in Illinois would not necessarily be affected by a decision.
Soon after this ruling, the house in the Ohio Legislature passed a measure saying college athletes are not employees, but in Connecticut, a measure says they have the right to unionize. Even for someone who follows this relatively closely, the debate is a hot topic where few people have all the facts and most moves are made based on emotion.
One issue that keeps arising is how much money student athletes, mainly football and basketball players, make for their university and the NCAA. USA Today reports in 2012, $504 million was sent to 228 Division I member schools: just over $2.2 million per school. Of the 228, only about 10 percent of college athletic departments actually make money. Athletic departments are funded by the money sports generate through ticket sales, merchandise and funds from the NCAA distributed to the member schools. However, even members of that 10 percent, which might be considered "self-sustaining," rely on subsidies from the school and government entities. Only seven schools on the list do not rely on a subsidy, but 76 percent of schools calculate subsidies as 50 percent or more of their revenue. Subsidies at Cincinnati and Oregon State, two schools in the FBS "Big Six Conferences", are comprised of just over 33 and 31 percent of their revenue, respectively.
Data compiled by USA Today for 2011 shows the lowest revenue-generating school on the list, University of New Orleans, had almost $3 million in expenses. Not including subsidies, such as student fees and government funding, the school made less than one million dollars. Including the subsidies, they were just under $150k in the clear. Assuming men's basketball is the money sport at the school, and this "surplus" were divided equally between 12 team sports, that's just over $12K per sport. Seventeen basketball players could theoretically get an additional $712 each. Basketball practices, according to NCAA regulations, can start in September. If the team makes it to the NCAA championship, that's an additional three dollars a day for seven months.
At Texas, which does not use subsidies, athletics are just over $2.5 million in the clear. Sixteen sports could split the extra money: $1, 564,087.81 each. Their football roster has 98 players, and in theory each player could receive an additional $15,960.08. At about eight months, including spring and regular season football, that's $66.50 per day. Remember, this number is only one of 7 self-sustaining schools, and represents the most any student could get because Texas had the greatest difference in revenue minus expenses.
Under basic definitions, college athletes could be employees: they have a contract to play a sport at a university, and in turn, that university provides reasonable compensation for the student's choice to play a sport. Simply put; said school covers student's education expenses including room and board as well as meals, student plays sport for school and complies with the rules of the NCAA. Perhaps students need to form a labor union; representation that looks out for their interests as a whole, to include managing compensation, hours worked, working conditions, etc.
According to the NCAA website, Division I and II schools provide over $2 billion dollars in scholarships for over 126,000 student athletes, which means an average of $15, 873 per student. Some students receive more, others receive less, because it is a coach's decision based on how much a school can provide in a certain sport. Many student athletes receive partial funds that do not cover the full cost of college attendance.
To sum this up, paying college players is not something the sport can afford at this time.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Winter Means Big Money for the NCAA
The first day of spring is March 20. Before that day hits, The NCAA will have gone through the Bowl Championship Series Bowls, consisting of the Sugar; Orange; Rose; Fiesta and a BCS National Championship, and also the start of March Madness. The first round of the NCAA basketball tournament starts on the 16th of March. Between TV contracts, ticket and merchandise sales, the NCAA stands to have a big pay day. Super Bowl Sunday just wrapped what many might believe is probably the largest ad season: the NFL Post Season. According to The Washington Post, for the big game, the average price for an ad is $4 million. But March Madness has consistently made more over the past few years... and the spread is growing.
Marketplace.org says in 2012, TV ad revenue reached over $1 billion for March Madness. Think Progress says that in 2009, the college football bowl season made $261 million. In addition to this, the money from bowl season is tax-free, because bowls are considered non-profit organizations. The total for bowl season is less than a $100-million difference in what Major League Baseball made in 2012, and trumps the $101 million made by the professional hockey.
Once again, the large revenues for the NCAA question the idea to not pay student-athletes for the "risk" they take on the fields of play. A Forbes article says the waiting period to enter the NBA, one year, or the NFL, three years, is what forces people to feel students in these sports are exploited by their colleges. In all fairness, a lot of the rhetoric to go straight to the pros before the waiting period ended got louder once the NBA enacted its one-year plan in 2005. However, as the NCAA continues to see increased profits, the rhetoric will get louder.
Marketplace.org says in 2012, TV ad revenue reached over $1 billion for March Madness. Think Progress says that in 2009, the college football bowl season made $261 million. In addition to this, the money from bowl season is tax-free, because bowls are considered non-profit organizations. The total for bowl season is less than a $100-million difference in what Major League Baseball made in 2012, and trumps the $101 million made by the professional hockey.
Once again, the large revenues for the NCAA question the idea to not pay student-athletes for the "risk" they take on the fields of play. A Forbes article says the waiting period to enter the NBA, one year, or the NFL, three years, is what forces people to feel students in these sports are exploited by their colleges. In all fairness, a lot of the rhetoric to go straight to the pros before the waiting period ended got louder once the NBA enacted its one-year plan in 2005. However, as the NCAA continues to see increased profits, the rhetoric will get louder.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Pretty Soon, High Schoolers Will Want a Check
Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA, revealed earlier this week that the larger schools are more inclined to pay a stipend than provide student athletes with increased scholarships to cover personal expenses. South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier has been very vocal in paying athletes as well. Jacques Rozier, passionate supporter of college sports and the author of this blog says 'Let's just do away with the farce of "amateur" sports altogether?' If we look at the changing of the tides, athletes in college will be getting a paycheck within the next five years. And the main reasoning people provide is how much money the students make for the school compared to how much they need to live and survive in college. I am sorry, but I am not sold!
College is not the end-product, and the prospect of paying athletes is not going to ensure said athletes will complete their education and graduate. Unless the payments to those athletes match what a prospective pro career will be, they are going to constantly ask for more money. And if colleges think there is a gap in recruiting for the big schools now, wait until you talk about which schools can pay more for a student to attend and play.
One argument is also that once the student's graduate or move on, if they do not get a pro contract, they have to settle for a job that isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to how much they made for their university. I would be more inclined to provide the athletes with a post-education stipend to assist them while they search for a job or to help pay off student debt. Many students who attend college rely on their parents, so they can return home while they search for a job, or if they have employment, they can use their paycheck for paying off debt as opposed to living expenses that come with the real world. I would support this for the athletes, but to pay them to attend class? That is quite a bit of a stretch.
College football implemented a playoff to help with some of the late season issues that come from scheduling and conference bias. Paying athletes will defeat the purpose of ending the BCS, because these games will soon be determined well before the spring games kick off, let alone the regular season. If I wanted to look at athletes more concerned with a paycheck than getting it done on the field, I would be a fan of the pros. There is a reason I support and love college sports. Perhaps I need to just go cheer on the local high school teams, before they become tainted as well.
College is not the end-product, and the prospect of paying athletes is not going to ensure said athletes will complete their education and graduate. Unless the payments to those athletes match what a prospective pro career will be, they are going to constantly ask for more money. And if colleges think there is a gap in recruiting for the big schools now, wait until you talk about which schools can pay more for a student to attend and play.
One argument is also that once the student's graduate or move on, if they do not get a pro contract, they have to settle for a job that isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to how much they made for their university. I would be more inclined to provide the athletes with a post-education stipend to assist them while they search for a job or to help pay off student debt. Many students who attend college rely on their parents, so they can return home while they search for a job, or if they have employment, they can use their paycheck for paying off debt as opposed to living expenses that come with the real world. I would support this for the athletes, but to pay them to attend class? That is quite a bit of a stretch.
College football implemented a playoff to help with some of the late season issues that come from scheduling and conference bias. Paying athletes will defeat the purpose of ending the BCS, because these games will soon be determined well before the spring games kick off, let alone the regular season. If I wanted to look at athletes more concerned with a paycheck than getting it done on the field, I would be a fan of the pros. There is a reason I support and love college sports. Perhaps I need to just go cheer on the local high school teams, before they become tainted as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)