College Sports Has a 1 Percent Problem

[Mustangs_Maroons]

Not sure if this bloomberg article has been posted before but an interesting read.

source: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... nt-problem

Aug 13

By David Kahn

As we slide down the slippery slope toward paying college athletes, consider this: There are approximately 420,000 students playing college sports, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Included are the 6,370 scholarship athletes who play football or men’s basketball in one of the "Power Five" conferences that have now voted to shrug off many of the constraints of the NCAA.

But if the issue is really about handing over the value to the "value creators," as some have put it, then we’re not talking about 6,370 deserving athletes. We’re talking about a very small fraction thereof.

Assuming cynicism hasn’t completely won the day, let’s stipulate that:

1) There’s still economic value in having a free ride to college -- say, $30,000 a year on average. There are others perks, too: all-you-can-eat training tables, academic tutors, free trips on charter planes, athletic dorms, etc. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s say that the value of a four-year education for the 85 scholarship football players and 13 basketball players at each of these 65 schools is $120,000; and

2) it’s still fun to be on a sports team -- it’s something most 18- and 19-year-olds would kill to do.

Now, there is no disputing that certain football and basketball players create more value than others. These are the team stars: the ones who are featured on the broadcasts, on the school’s promotional materials and during March Madness. The ones such as Ed O’Bannon, who led my alma mater, UCLA, to a national championship in 1995, with an explosive, unorthodox left-handed style that was later captured in video games by EA Sports -- without any compensation to O’Bannon.

Yet, the vast majority of the 85 scholarship football players and 13 basketball players each year are not O’Bannons. They are not distinctive. They are, in many cases, fungible. For these players, it’s not such a bad deal -- $120,000 of free college and the privileges that come with membership on the team. The fun.

So who counts as a value creator? Hardly scientific, but let’s say that it’s 22 starting players on each football team and the five starters on each basketball team. If so, then the ultra-reformists are talking about rooting hypocrisy out of a system, changing it forever -- causing system-wide ripple effects -- based on no more than 1,755 players: about four-tenths of 1 percent of all 420,000 student-athletes.

No matter which side you choose in this debate, it’s not outlandish to argue the economic sacrifices of these few are necessary for what sports provide to the remaining 99.6 percent.

This is not to say there shouldn’t be meaningful reform of certain rules. A player shouldn’t have to supplement his “free” ride out of pocket; a small stipend makes sense. Insurance policies need to be strengthened. And a scholarship athlete from an at-need home shouldn’t have to rely on a booster to surreptitiously arrange for his family to fly in for the Big Game -- there should be institutional support for in-season trips.

But anything more than these type of modest fixes, and we’re talking about changing the very nature of college athletics in ways nobody can predict.

Just last week, for example, ESPN paid big money for the rights to broadcast several hours of valuable athletic competition, featuring school-age players from all across the world. And to think, the players on those Little League World Series teams didn’t see a dime.

To contact the writer of this article: David Kahn at dbk4@nyu.edu.

[Stallion]

How much should the players on the Texas high School Championship get? How about Mudiay and the other members of the McDonald's All-American game and the series of all-star games televised nationally. How bout Allen, Southlake Carroll and others playing number TV games including nationally advertised games. There is no functional distinguishing difference between College and high school games. Both are educational institutions playing nationally/regional promoted games on TV. Slippery slope-headed in the wrong direction.

[couch 'em]

How much will the televised spelling bee competitors get?

[Hoop Fan]

best article and opinion i have read on the issue, good stuff. People root for the laundry, not the players 99.9% of the time. Johnny, Hershel, OJ, Dickerson are few and far between exceptions over the last 30-40 years.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

So true!!!

[Killen]

YO! If teams could function with just a starting 5 OR 22 for the football team, they would. But, they cannot. While the 3rd string lineman is not as valuable as the starting quarterback he is still a very necessary part of the end product. Star players do not exist a vacuum.

[birddogger]

YO! If teams could function with just a starting 5 OR 22 for the football team, they would. But, they cannot. While the 3rd string lineman is not as valuable as the starting quarterback he is still a very necessary part of the end product. Star players do not exist a vacuum.

True. But look at the NFL. Tony Romo gets paid a lot more than a special-teamer. Jameis Winston would get paid more than a 3rd string safety under a true open-market scenario (perhaps he needs it to afford those crab dinners). This is a slippery slope indeed.

[fifty]

I hope whatever solution they come up with results in NCAA Football for Playstation & XBox being put back into business.

[Mexmustang]

The simple conclusion is that there will be a major reduction in the number of college athletes. Why should SMU build a new tennis facility? A new natatorium? in order to keep up it will be necessary to not just raise revenues and contributions, but cut costs outside of football and men's basketball. I am not against these sports, but UT has the minimum number of non-revenue teams and it has the greatest athletic revenue. It just seems to be the logical conclusion to a runaway train. And just wait for women's teams to rightfully get their money?

Again, schools like SMU have more power than we realize. Where are our ideas? Why simply turn over all the rights of all colleges and universities to a handful of schools without negotiating some of our demands?

When I refer to a few schools, I am referring to the fact that in the P-5 conferences there are only 2-3 schools that make the rules.

If the issue is improving the benefits of a few players that come from underprivileged economic situations certainly there is a better way to fix it?

Why not put a tax on TV revenues and provide insurance policies across the board for all members. Why not use revenues to supplement Pell grants (based upon need)? Why not demand an eight team playoff, with two places reserved for the top two non P-5 conferences?

In short why just roll over and make no proposals or demands?

[Mexmustang]

Error

[fifty]

Aren't we already at the minimum number of sports required to be D1?

[Stallion]

Yes

[Mexmustang]

See below

[footballdad]

Great posts Mex! There will be a backlash eventually. Maybe not year 1 or year 2, but if this unfolds as many expect, the law of unintended consequences will become apparent to all, as it usually does. People don't like bullies, and they eventually fight back.

[Mexmustang]

Sorry about the duplicated post. Sitting here in Bend, Oregon with a faulty connection.

First, whose to say those requirements won't be reduced?

Second, we can retain the teams, but reduce their financial support.

Finally, are we effectively still D-1?

The point I am trying to make is that non P-5 schools, need to do something besides lay down.

Just think about it? I am a great believer in "You Can Negotiate Anything". What about politics? Consider the state of Florida, three P-5 schools, two public institutions. But, UCF, USF and Florida International and Atlantic are pretty large institutions, the first two much larger that FSU for instance. They must have a pretty significant constituency. What if they petition to reduce the state subsidies to the two public schools in light of their conspiracy to reduce the athletic revenue of the other four?

Probably just BS on my part, but to just sit there and let coaches like the idiot at South Carolina ruin college football is idiotic.