Name, Image, Likeness Rule

[chrisRunner7]

Don't forget Ryan McDonald, All-American Honorable Mention starting Center for the football team with a 3.8+ in aerospace engineering, earned an MS in aerospace engineering in his final year.

Wow. I had to look him up to see what he was doing nowadays with that degree:

Life Support Systems Engineer II​

SpaceX​

Oct 2013 - Present
7 years 10 months
Hawthorne, CA
Responsible Engineer in life support systems for Crew Dragon.
Responsible for design, analysis, development and testing of low pressure breathing oxygen and nitrox distribution components and secondary structure.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

Wow. I had to look him up to see what he was doing nowadays with that degree:

Life Support Systems Engineer II​

SpaceX​

Oct 2013 - Present
7 years 10 months
Hawthorne, CA
Responsible Engineer in life support systems for Crew Dragon.
Responsible for design, analysis, development and testing of low pressure breathing oxygen and nitrox distribution components and secondary structure.

I don't want to keep going off-topic here, but Mike Hopkins is exhibit A on making the most of the "Student" part of "Student Athlete". Josh Whitman's on that list too.

 

[ILL_INI]

We don't agree on this. I used hyberbole, but when millions are made off an athlete's talent and they only see a few tens of thousands a year in the form of tuition, I call that exploitative. Even if the athletic department ends the year in the red.

It's not just Illinois. It's all of NCAA and NAIA. The system needs to change and I'm glad to see it starting to do just that.

The exploitation argument always struck me as specious. If it's exploitative because universities are making money off the two revenue sports, and mostly through television rights, ticket sales and licensing, how come the best athletes want to go to the schools with a lot of fans at the games, with more games nationally broadcast and their school's apparel at their local Nike store? You would think HBCUs would clean up on the recruiting front, because they would be less exploitative. I wonder if the student-athletes have found a value beyond a scholarship that you don't recognize.

By the way, I'm all in favor of athletes making money off their NIL. And it's much better than other changes, such as conference realignment.

 

[ILL_INI]

Terrific interview with Kam Cox, who is sort of the new NIL guy at Illinois, starting at the 1:19:20 mark or so. Some great questions from listeners, too.

WDWS' Saturday's Sports Talk:

 

[IlliniKat91]

The exploitation argument always struck me as specious. If it's exploitative because universities are making money off the two revenue sports, and mostly through television rights, ticket sales and licensing, how come the best athletes want to go to the schools with a lot of fans at the games, with more games nationally broadcast and their school's apparel at their local Nike store? You would think HBCUs would clean up on the recruiting front, because they would be less exploitative. I wonder if the student-athletes have found a value beyond a scholarship that you don't recognize.

By the way, I'm all in favor of athletes making money off their NIL. And it's much better than other changes, such as conference realignment.

ex·ploit·a·tive
/ikˈsploidədiv,ekˈsploidədiv/

adjective

making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit.
"an exploitative form of labor" (from Google)

The key word in that definition is "or." I don't believe schools intentionally treat athletes in an unfair manner, but they have been taking advantage of the NCAA's rules for years that allowed them to be gate keepers to the NFL and NBA while making millions of dollars.

DI schools have a monopoly on the market in terms of getting people to NFL and NBA. That's why Blue Bloods keep getting 5* kids even though they won't be the showcase athlete per se, and why DII, DIII and HBCUs don't have a real foot in the door. When you have everyone believing you're the only way to do it, it does become exploitative. Perhaps not for the students that make it to the pros, but it does for all the others. .5% benefiting doesn't negate that exploitation.

It's a different story in non-revenue sports where, maybe other than baseball, most of those student athletes do not anticipate going pro in their sport and are focused on the degree for the long term benefit. I want to be clear that I'm not saying that the degree isn't beneficial. It absolutely is, but most high major kids in revenue sports go in with the belief that they'll be pros in a few years, even if someone's shared the stats with them. That creates a situation that is exploitative, intentional or not. Given how big the business of college sports is, I don't see how it could be unintentional at this point.

I think the creation of G League Ignite will start to chip away at that belief on the basketball side, particularly if more of those guys who go from high school to the Ignite catch on with teams.

Football is going to be harder. Alabama, OSU, LSU and a few others have cornered the market and I don't think the NFL has any interest in a developmental league of their own (the start up cost alone would be detrimental, I'm guessing). They're going to have a death grip on that for a while.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

The exploitation argument always struck me as specious. If it's exploitative because universities are making money off the two revenue sports, and mostly through television rights, ticket sales and licensing, how come the best athletes want to go to the schools with a lot of fans at the games, with more games nationally broadcast and their school's apparel at their local Nike store? You would think HBCUs would clean up on the recruiting front, because they would be less exploitative. I wonder if the student-athletes have found a value beyond a scholarship that you don't recognize.

By the way, I'm all in favor of athletes making money off their NIL. And it's much better than other changes, such as conference realignment.

Just because it's the best option out there for these kids doesn't mean it's not exploitative. Until G League Ignite, it was pretty much a requirement if you wanted to play professionally to first play in the NCAA (definitely in NBA, but also foreign leagues want to sign college players, not high schoolers). HBCU's don't produce professional basketball players like other schools, and aren't any "less exploitative" in the sense that their players also don't get paid.

Let's put it this way. If you're hard up for a job, and you're about to lose your house, and someone offers to let your 9 year old child work back breaking manual labor for $2 an hour, is it not exploitative because it's the best offer on the table?

 

[sbillini]

Football is barely a revenue sport. It’s really men’s basketball, men’s lacrosse, men’s ice hockey, baseball and wrestling. Those are the 5 championships that generate revenue for the ncaa. The other 85 do not. Notice football is not on that list

I’m assuming this is sarcasm?
If not, I think you’re grossly misunderstanding how the numbers work. Frankly I’m not exactly sure how the finances for specific games work. What I am sure about is a majority (if not a vast majority) of TV contract revenue is from football - which in turn is a large chunk of revenue for any given conference/school (might be majority - can’t remember the exact numbers off the top of my head - can look it up if you want).

it’s not even close. Men’s lacrosse ain’t making a dent in revenue. They may get a few bucks for winning a championship, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s pennies. Basketball is not pennies, but still not nearly as big as football. The bowl games, championship games, etc revenue are all baked into those tv deals (not to mention the ticket/merch/ etc sales around it).

 

[sbillini]

All I stated was that of the 90 ncaa championships (notably football does not have an ncaa championship) only 5 are a net profit. The ncaa does not gain anything from bowl games as those are run by individual sponsors and generate no revenue (ticket sales, tv deals etc) that goes to the ncaa

I guess I might be misunderstanding what you’re trying to say. When you say “NCAA” are you referring solely to the management entity and not the schools/conferences that consist of the “NCAA” and govern its existence? The I guess you might technically be right, but in a practical sense, football is still king. Just cuz the money doesn’t directly flow through the management entity doesn’t mean the entity doesn’t benefit off of it. And, in the case of the NCAA, it’s very existence is largely dependent on it.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

This approach seems a bit flawed. You seem to suggest that 90% of one and dones could simply go straight to the NBA out of high school. Before the 19 year old rule, that simply wasn’t how it happened. The best players did, but not all of them.

There are options. Why is it you think professional teams overseas primarily sign college kids over high school kids? Do they have some 19 year old restriction too?

Not at all what I suggested. Whether or not these players could play in the NBA is irrelevant to whether or not they provide uncompensated or undercompensated value at the NCAA level.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

To use your logic, it’s exploitative that anyone has to go to college because companies won’t hire you for certain jobs without a college degree.

If they can’t get a contract overseas out of high school, then where do you fall on it being exploitative? Say they get rid of the 19 year old rule and you can get drafted out of high school. Does it become less exploitative because you COULD go to the nba? Is it exploitative if you simply aren’t good enough to get drafted out of high school but have the option?

You're not actually using my logic. You're using a straw man projection of my logic. Just because I provide compensation better than the alternatives doesn't mean I'm not exploting you. In a free market these players would make more than just a scholarship. The fact that NCAA basketball and football coaches make what they make is ample evidence of that. The fact that they don't make what they could make in a free market is evidence that the system is exploitative. The fact that they still choose to go that route does nothing to rebut that, because they don't have a better option. People take the best option available, even if that option exploits them.

 

[illini80]

It certainly is an interesting debate and not one that will ever be definitively decided. My opinion is that college for athletes is somewhat similar to an internship or maybe more accurately an apprenticeship. Little compensation for the work done, but invaluable experience and education. You learn your craft from experts that you would otherwise not have access to. It’s a long established process that serves the individual as well as the overall profession.

Either way, it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

 

[SeattleSlim]

Seems that the underlying theme in this discussion has been money. Is that how everything should be valued, or just sports? Where in this discussion about exploitation are definitions of even more key concepts such as “need” vs “want”? And what is “fair”?

Because of the way our special form of society and economics works, what’s not exploitative? Schools exploit athletes (in some sports), the media exploit the schools, the advertisers exploit the media, etc., etc. Isn’t this our brand of capitalism? Because societies have rules (laws which may or may not reflect current “values”), ideals (like the “free market”, e.g.) do not exist in a pure form.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

Bowl games are not financed by the ncaa. The ncaa gets zero revenue from bowl games.

Nowhere in this thread has anyone said that they are.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Seems that the underlying theme in this discussion has been money. Is that how everything should be valued, or just sports? Where in this discussion about exploitation are definitions of even more key concepts such as “need” vs “want”? And what is “fair”?

Because of the way our special form of society and economics works, what’s not exploitative? Schools exploit athletes (in some sports), the media exploit the schools, the advertisers exploit the media, etc., etc. Isn’t this our brand of capitalism? Because societies have rules (laws which may or may not reflect current “values”), ideals (like the “free market”, e.g.) do not exist in a pure form.

I guess my question would be is there any other industry in which the workers receive zero direct monetary compensation for the value they provide? There may well be some examples, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any with the money involved in NCAA basketball and football.

Once NCAA basketball and football became a big money maker, the idea of these competitors as amateurs or student-athletes became outdated. The responsible thing to do would have been to figure out a system to share some of the profits with the athletes, from the beginning. The NCAA went the other way which is why we got years of shady recruiting, bag men, and now NIL.

 

[SeattleSlim]

I guess my question would be is there any other industry in which the workers receive zero direct monetary compensation for the value they provide? There may well be some examples, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any with the money involved in NCAA basketball and football.

Once NCAA basketball and football became a big money maker, the idea of these competitors as amateurs or student-athletes became outdated. The responsible thing to do would have been to figure out a system to share some of the profits with the athletes, from the beginning. The NCAA went the other way which is why we got years of shady recruiting, bag men, and now NIL.

Ever hear of “starving” artists, writers, musicians, actors, etc.? It seems those who have a passion for what they do and may strive for some degree of fame fall into this same category.

 

[illinitiger]

I guess my question would be is there any other industry in which the workers receive zero direct monetary compensation for the value they provide? There may well be some examples, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any with the money involved in NCAA basketball and football.

Once NCAA basketball and football became a big money maker, the idea of these competitors as amateurs or student-athletes became outdated. The responsible thing to do would have been to figure out a system to share some of the profits with the athletes, from the beginning. The NCAA went the other way which is why we got years of shady recruiting, bag men, and now NIL.

Your point of NCAA making boatloads on recent years is good,...

On a smaller scale, Dan exploits us, including "the juice cometh" as the Illinois Loyalty board is monetized..../s

That said, We love you Dan and your service, and wishing you as much $ you can earn here!

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Ever hear of “starving” artists, writers, musicians, actors, etc.? It seems those who have a passion for what they do and may strive for some degree of fame fall into this same category.

Apples and oranges. These athletes are not "starving artists." Their work is profitable to the NCAA. The profit just doesn't trickle down to them. Do you think a musician would be ok with a record label releasing their music, with no monetary compensation? Of course not. The starving artists are the ones who haven't found a market yet. NCAA athletes have a market for what they do, they just aren't allowed to profit from it.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Your point of NCAA making boatloads on recent years is good,...

On a smaller scale, Dan exploits us, including "the juice cometh" as the Illinois Loyalty board is monetized..../s

That said, We love you Dan and your service, and wishing you as much $ you can earn here!

Lol. If my opinions had any monetary value, you better believe I wouldn't be wasting them on a message board.

 

[SeattleSlim]

Apples and oranges. These athletes are not "starving artists." Their work is profitable to the NCAA. The profit just doesn't trickle down to them. Do you think a musician would be ok with a record label releasing their music, with no monetary compensation? Of course not. The starving artists are the ones who haven't found a market yet. NCAA athletes have a market for what they do, they just aren't allowed to profit from it.

Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.

Perhaps, but the athletes only have a market because they’re provided (by others) a venue for showcasing their talents.

In the end, like comedians, they’re just entertainers looking for a payday and a spotlight.

That would be the same for any artist. The market is generally provided by someone else, with both sides (in theory) benefitting from the efforts of the other.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

You are completely neglecting the purpose of the NCAA. If you cycle the profits back to the players, then sports that don’t make money will be abandoned and no longer receive aid. Do you want think scholarships are just universities waiving tuition and fees? No. The NCAA uses that money earned by the football team to pay for the gymnastics student athlete to go to school on a full ride scholarship

How can UK afford to field a volleyball team and pay Coach Cal over $9 million a year? How does Alabama afford swim team facilities and Saban's salary, also north of $9 million? This kind of money floating around and there's no way the the NCAA could have worked out any kind of compensation system for the players?

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

You are completely neglecting the purpose of the NCAA. If you cycle the profits back to the players, then sports that don’t make money will be abandoned and no longer receive aid. Do you want think scholarships are just universities waiving tuition and fees? No. The NCAA uses that money earned by the football team to pay for the gymnastics student athlete to go to school on a full ride scholarship

I'm pretty sure the schools' athletic departments fund the scholarships, not the NCAA.

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about where the NCAA gets its money and what it does with it, perhaps a primary source is in order:

Finances

Finances

www.ncaa.org

As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA puts its money where its mission is: equipping student-athletes to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

The NCAA receives most of its annual revenue from two sources: television and marketing rights for the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship and ticket sales for all championships. That money is distributed in more than a dozen ways — almost all of which directly support NCAA schools, conferences and nearly half a million student-athletes.

About 60% of the NCAA’s annual revenue — around $600 million — is annually distributed directly to Division I member schools and conferences, while more than $150 million funds Division I championships. Divisions II and III receive 4.37% and 3.18% of all NCAA revenue, respectively, which both divisions divide to fund their championships and support their membership. The NCAA also funds several services and educational programs for student-athletes and member schools, as well as a number of scholarship, grant and internship programs.

The Board of Governors — the NCAA’s highest governing body, with representatives from all three divisions and public members — oversees the Association’s finances, including distributions.

Then I must have misinterpreted the point made earlier about how much money the ncaa makes off of bowl games sales and tv deals

Ya know, I scoured this thread again just to see if I was wrong, and there's nothing that even insinuates the NCAA makes money off of bowl games.

 

[grue2]

How can UK afford to field a volleyball team and pay Coach Cal over $9 million a year? How does Alabama afford swim team facilities and Saban's salary, also north of $9 million? This kind of money floating around and there's no way the the NCAA could have worked out any kind of compensation system for the players?

The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html

 

[Calvin]

The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Sure, there are sports that don't make any money, and people are free to pursue those if that's their jam. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the fact that certain sports bring in enormous sums of money, and that money is made available only to certain people (e.g. coaches, NCAA brass), in gross violation of anti-trust law. Spreading money around based on averages has nothing to do with how an economy is supposed to work.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

The huge amounts that power conferences pay their head coaches distorts the issue.
- The median pay of a Div I head football coach is just under 1M.
- The average pay of a Div I head basketball coach is under 200k. (Not a typo.)
[Sorry about the median vs. average difference, I didn't find a consistent source. Given what power conferences pay, the median head basketball coach salary is even lower.]

UIUC has a bit over 500 scholarship athletes. I have no idea if this is high or low for a typical division I school.

If a typical football coaches gave up their half their salary (~500k), that would be 1k/player per year, or about $30/wk while school is in session. While nice, this isn't a solution. If a power 5 school, e.g. UI, dropped their head coach salaries for Football and Basketball to 1M each, then that would free about 10k/athlete per year. Most student athletes are not at power 5 schools.

Sample data backing the surprising head basketball coach salary numbers I found: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...ble_1c9f31d6-09d2-597b-8e27-b062f593ec73.html

Sure, but I don't think anyone is saying every player in every sport should receive the same compensation, or even should receive any compensation. For a sport that does not generate revenue, a scholarship may well be adequate. For a lower tier program, a basketball scholarship may be adequate compensation. For the players major programs bring in, it's not.

And head coach salaries are not the only place these revenues are being diverted. College athletic departments have, in many cases, facilities that rival professional organizations. Some of these facilities are absurd. Sinking money into these facilities has become a kind of recruiting tool. Again, the money is there, and can't go to players, so it goes elsewhere. Not to mention the money being spent under the table by boosters, that could easily be donated directly to the school if player compensation was above-board.