A pay for play buffet

A few morsels rounded up for your reading pleasure:

  • A reminder about the value of that free education the NCAA touts:  “According to 2018 report from USC’s Race and Equity Center, just 55% of black athletes from the Power Five conferences, which include college sports’ most profitable programs, graduate in six years as compared to 69.3% of all student-athletes.”
  • This is a detailed breakdown of how we got to California’s Fair Pay to Play Act, as well as what we might expect to see if there’s a court challenge (assuming it passes, of course).
  • Scratch Mike Leach on the subject of paying players and he sounds a lot more like Dabo than Mike Leach.
  • For those of you who don’t get how antitrust law and cartels work, remember that you don’t have to buy tuna fish.

21 Comments

Filed under Academics? Academics., Mike Leach. Yar!, Political Wankery, See You In Court, The NCAA

21 responses to “A pay for play buffet

  1. Derek

    Both of those graduation rates are higher than the regular student body and as far as I know the regular student body doesn’t drop out to accept multi-million dollar contracts thus artificially lowering those stats.

    Btw: what is the power 5 graduation rate for students with comparable admissions qualifications as the football and basketball players? 0 out of 0?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. ASEF

    Remember Mike Leach and his “fat little girlfriends” comments? He’s never been much on the players, seems to see them from a GOML perspective. Grumpy Pirate ain’t got time for Entitled Swabs.

    Like

  3. I’ve said it before, but 10 to 12 years down the road I suspect most people that actually love the college game today (as opposed to those that actually want to destroy it), will wish we would have never gone down this road. But it will be to late.

    Like

  4. TimberRidgeDawg

    With regards to graduation rates for black athletes,the study makes notice of the disparity in the number of black athletes playing basketball/football versus other sports.

    The elephant in the room is that those are the revenue generating sports and also the sports that are most likely to accept students with high school and ACT/SAT scores at levels below the average student body, black or white. Running a 4.4 forty is not a predictor of academic performance.

    Without going back to the dark days of Jan Kemp and the argument that at least we can produce good postal workers, I do think schools are making greater efforts to enable the academic success of at risk athletes. There are a lot of success stories out there for kids that came into their own academically that otherwise would never have seen the light of day at a P5 university.

    So this begs the question, if, hypothetically speaking, a disproportionate number of the accepted academically at risk students are black, what should the be the acceptable outcome for graduation rates versus those that fall in the 50th percentile of the student body as a whole?

    Not addressed is the topic of funneling athletes into jock majors to keep them eligible. Given that the NCAA is saying that these athletes are being paid through an education, then these kids need to be given greatest opportunity possible to earn degrees with income potential after their playing days are over. You can’t tell people what major in and some degrees are harder to earn than others but kids that want to work should have that opportunity.

    Like

  5. Chopdawg

    Do not despair, O ye exploited student-athletes! Help is here! (for exploited basketball players, at least)

    According to an article in the Business Insider dated April 17, 2018, the NBA G-League’s base salary has risen to $7,000/month for the 5-month season.

    And, from the Historical Basketball League’s website, under “Open Letter”: (HBL plans to begin play in June 2020)

    “Increase in Maximum Salary

    We were excited to see the announcement of the G-League’s creation of their new salary maximum for high school basketball players deemed to be elite college prospects. However, this particular option solidifies the “compensation or education” way of thinking. The HBL is focused on ending this false choice by providing compensation AND education. With that in mind, we decided to raise our maximum salary to $150,000 per season, plus the benefits that will be provided, as well as additional bonuses that may be offered. Our goal is to be the premier opportunity for college basketball players.”

    Like

  6. Rp

    Mike Leach has spoken. Now we know who is right in this debate and we can move on.

    Like

  7. Texas Dawg

    Since players would be able to make money off their name/likeness and the most frequently referenced thing is jersey sales, how would that work? The player will not be able to sell a jersey with any university identifier on it (unless they have a contract with said university). Since the university owns the trademark on that item, they can continue to sell all they want with the players number (but not their name) on the back. Would the athlete enter a contract to get a royalty in perpetuity ( Herschel jerseys still sell)? Lots of moving parts to this. Inquiring minds want to know.

    Like

    • spur21

      I buy my own jersey – then have so & so sign it and give him $100 or $100,000 whichever is more appropriate.

      Like

    • FlyingPeakDawg

      You answered your own question. The right to one’s own NLI means they can enter negotiations with the university, apparel company, truck dealership, etc. UGA can say “no”, or 50/50, or “you get 1% of sales”. At least the athlete has some control and opportunity.

      Suppose some 3rd teamer has a wild hairdo and is hell on special teams. He creates a caricature of himself to put on t-shirts and approaches the university and other licensed t-shirt makers. Maybe they like it and he sells a few dozen for a couple of thousand dollars. Who gets hurt?

      Like

    • W Cobb Dawg

      If Fromm purchases 100 jerseys, adds his autograph, and re-sells them for $100 each, does UGA deserve a cut? One would think UGA got their money on the original shirt. Fromm’s not mass-producing shirts. He’s adding value.

      Like

  8. Texas Dawg

    Nevius says that many of those graduates are left with hollow futures. “Everything is designed around the university and coach’s priority of sports first so they’re clustered into these majors that may not align with their academic interest and oftentimes do not give them the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in life beyond sports,” he says.

    No matter which side of the paying college athletes you are on, this is an item that has to be addressed. NOBODY, athlete or not, should be in a major in college that has no real potential for post graduate success. For the cost of the scholarship to have real value, it has to be useful after graduation. I’m not as interested in graduation rates (once given the opportunity it’s you job to sink or swim) as I am employment rates (within their major) for those who have graduated. Kind of like the lower tier law schools that trumpet high employment rates but fail to mention that is not as a lawyer (maybe as a Starbuck’s barista) because he/she could not pass the bar. If the ones who (put in the effort) graduate are not prepared to enter the real world THEN the school has failed them. Athlete or not, if you can not hack it and drop out, that’s on you. Once you are given (a real) opportunity, what you choose to do with it is up to you.

    Like

    • spur21

      Tell that to the regular students pursuing worthless degrees.

      Like

      • Texas Dawg

        I do all the time to my kids as they get closer to college. I have already let them know I will not help them financially in any way pursue a degree that is a joke just to have them play for 4 years. If they want to be an engineer, teacher, nurse, doctor (etc) mom and I will pay for it. If they want to pursue a degree in women’s studies, general studies or other such nonsense they are on their own.

        Like

    • 79Dawg

      The folly is that paying kids more is only going to accelerate the majority of them spending more time on athletics and less on academics.
      The thing is, if you went and asked our 85 guys on scholarship right now, which of them thought they would cash checks in the pros, 90+% would probably raise their hands. The reality is, its probably somewhere closer to 20%, and maybe half that will make enough from the NFL to not have to do something else.
      Waiving more money at the kids is only going to encourage the increased prioritization of athletics over academics that’s been going on for the past 40 years or so…
      And everyone is to blame for using the others – the NCAA, schools and administrators for making tons of money off the kids, and the kids for using the schools as a springboard to try and make it to the pros – and it is none of their interests to address it. Sadly, its only afterward when a kids’ football career is over that he can reflect and say, “shoulda taken advantage of the scholarship and spent more time on academics while I had the chance….”

      Like

      • Texas Dawg

        I know plenty of non athletes with the same regrets. ” I should have stayed out of the bars and studied more”. In any group some will fail miserably, some will succeed beyond their wildest dreams, and most will fall somewhere in between.

        Liked by 1 person