What implications for college baseball?

IMO this would be terrible for most of the other sports.  Football and basketball at the big schools generate the money and typically fund all of the other sports.  These players knew what the deal was when they signed up.  They are getting paid and its not a small sum.I know that if this goes thru I will stop donating to the university to support these athletes.  I'll direct my money to the other sports.  This is a very slippery slope.

I don't know enough to have a fully formed opinion, but this feels right. This paragraph jumped out at me:

 

The lawsuit Kessler filed is broader in scope. It makes no claim on specific revenues, only that athletes should be treated like other students, who are not subject to educational or financial compensation caps by agreement among universities. High-value students in areas like physics receive whatever the market will bear, in some cases a full scholarship plus cash.

There's no reason that a kid shouldn't get money from sales of his own jersey, or likeness.

Sorry, I can't support this. The $100,000+ that they get in free education is more than enough.  The problem is, most of the players who are pushing for this have NO DESIRE to get an education...so they don't feel like they're really getting anything.  They are there to GET TO THE PRO's....so why do they care if they are getting a free education??   My daugher is a freshman at a major D1 university here in OH-IO.  She was number 1 in her HS class with a 4.0 since the day she started 1st grade... got a 32 on her ACT and that earned her a whopping $5,000/year in academic scholarship money.  You have football players who were lucky to finish HS, don't go to class, leave after 2 or 3 years and never graduate who get a full ride and yet think they deserve more?? Sorry, but I'll never agree with them.

None of this would've happened if the schools hadn't milked things for all there worth once the kids had LEFT school.Thats the genesis of the whole problem.Education or not no one should have to give up their college likeness and everything that goes with it forever. 

The absence of education as a reason to attend college; what you have is "semi-pro" or just plain apprentice sports. I can just see colleges "admitting" or should I just say hiring a player for 1-4 years. What do they get; education if they want it (no different then now) and compensation which can come in all types of forms from room and board all the way to pure compensation.

 

The question would then be would academic requirements play a roll in "recruiting" athletes or would they be strictly hired gun's brought in to "entertain" and make money for a university?

 

Would we need academic qualifiers if athletes are hired to do a job?

Your daughter has the right to start a side business, do consulting, sell her likeness, get a music contract, or even create the next Facebook.  She can make unlimited income while in college.

The point of this lawsuit is that "enough" should be defined by the market, not capped by an arbitrary limit.  The value of a star player to a college sports enterprise is unrelated to the cost of attendance.  Why should the university have the right to link the former to the latter? Is the player at a state school worth more than a player at a private school?  Why should his compensation be capped at a lower value?

The entire premise of amateur athletics, and long standing rule for maintaining amateur status has been, " no pay for play".  Why should that change?

 

If colleges cannot market and profit from its sports, the college athletics we have today become a thing of the past.  The money the student athletes receive now via scholarship is more than enough, and certainly as much, if not more than other college students receive.

 

Why do we want to manage / dictate how the colleges market, and profit?  These athletes are not captive, they can choose to not play amateur sports, and start a side job, and make as much money as they want.  If they want to accept the GIFT of attending college on scholarship, they also choose to allow the school to subsidize their investments however they see fit, and not be forced to redistribute the profits.  If the colleges are FORCED to share profits, then be ready for the scholarship $ to be drastically reduced.  There is no money tree that can be used to fund both.

 

Again, it's totally up to the athlete, he or she is not forced to attend any school, just like any of us are not forced to accept any job that we do not want.  There just isn't enough money to have it both ways....of course unless everyone is willing to pay $500 per ticket, $50 to park, and $20 for a hot dog.

Sure, try to find time for that while maintaining a 4.0 GPA taking Honors classes in Nursing/PT???  Not a likely scenario.   She could work all she wants and never come close to the $100,000 that the football guys who may not go to class, not graduate and generally don't care about a free education.  Sorry, you're not gonna convince me.   Funny thing is, the only "athletes" who've been mentioned so far in these lawsuits are guys who have for whatever reason found a way to not graduate.  So essentially they want paid to get an education...and paid to play...but blow off the education portion.  The guys who are on pace to graduate will never complain becausae they took advantage of the free education to earn a degree and have a job lined up....which is the premise of the scholarship in the first place.  You don't hear guys like Aaron Craft (with his 3.9 gpa) jumping in on these things....because he stayed in school and will have a job, whether it's the NBA or in his chose profession. 

Would you call the players students or employees? Seems to me if players just want to play and have no real reason to be at school then there would need to be another venue.Do we have minor league sports?  We have some. Lets give the scholarships to the ones that go to class. Let the others go try to get paid.   .. well that's not realistic. Dang!

 

I graduated with honors from undergrad and have a Master's Degree from Georgetown University, while setting records pitching in college. I also served on 3 advisory committees, took part in community service activities on campus, and had two minors. I spent 10 1/2 months rehabbing from an injury that was caused by playing and didn't do any internships while I was in school because I spent my summers playing in collegiate summer leagues. 

 

Next subject, please.

 

The NCAA, and the concept of "amateurism," is a complete farce. It's only a matter of time until the ship with all of this economic ridiculousness gets righted. 

 

They essentially are. If every corporation in another given industry colluded to limit on how much employees would make, making rules that one couldn't work for a year if an employee wanted to switch employers, limiting the amount of time one could work in the field, and other prohibitive rules, there would literally be violence if there wasn't antitrust action taken. Here, it's par for the course.

I think this is a really good point.  Athletes are far more restricted than the general student population.  I can help out a neighbor kid with tuition and expenses but only if he's not an athlete - that's absurd.  The NCAA puts these restrictions in place so that richer schools can't use their wealth to lure the best talent.  So to maintain competitive balance they sc*** the student athlete.  They need to find another way to maintain competitive balance.

Just curious....who paid for that Georgetown education? 

What I see occurring is a heated debate on whether certain student-athletes are genuinely student-athletes or athletes creating revenue for a university. We can't throw a blanket over all football and basketball players. Some get their degrees. But some of them have no business being in college.

 

I dont want to see student-athletes get paid like employees. What I don't mind is giving them a few hundred a month as an allowance. Some of these kids don't have any money to live like a college kid. 

 

What I don't like is colleges or businesses making money off a student-athlete's image in a video game or a jersey with his name on it. There could be a trust where the kid gets a check IF he graduates or goes pro in good academic standing after at least three years.

"Wow, you have a very impressive skillset. You've obviously worked very hard to get where you are. We'd like to hire you, but we're not going to pay you what you're worth, because we're going to keep all the profits. And if you try to profit off of your abilities outside of this institution, you will be disciplined. There are no other outlets by which you are able to utilize your skills, so this is your only option. Take it or leave it."

 

…imagine that conversation happening between H.R. and a prospective doctor seeking employment at a hospital...

 

 

I did - or should I say, I am. I'd offer you my hat or jersey or something but I'm not allowed to, or else the big bad NCAA would impose sanctions because I sold my own clothing.

 

 

That's a ridiculous argument....because that DOCTOR has completed 8 years of college....likely mostly at his own expense.  Comparing that to a 20 year old kid thinking he should be getting paid for playing a sport ON TOP of $100,000 in education is ridiculous.

What I don't think anyone is getting here, is that there just isn't the money to do both.  Most schools run at a deficit when it comes to sports, where does the money come from if you have to pay the athletes?

 

Amateur athletes are not employees, they are given the choice to play, go to school and not play, or get a job....does not sound like a captive situation to me, and certainly not in need of picketing, and unions.  If you can provide financial reports of huge profits AFTER ALL sports are funded, both male, and female, then we can talk about income redistribution.  Until then, I don't see it happening.

 

 

Aaron Craft will not become an NBA player. Give him a few years. It will be Dr Aaron Craft.

Is it redistribution if it's going to the very people who are providing the labor?

 

The most basic principle of economic profit involves supply and demand. The supply for highly talented collegiate athletes is very low, and the demand is very high. Similarly, the supply of doctors is low and the demand is high. Doctors benefit economically from their skills, but college athletes do not.

 

The doctor's prior education and expenses have nothing to do with his or her abilities to profit off of his or her current skillset. Nor does it have anything to do with the athlete's.

 

Matt,

 

it's redistribution if all athletes get paid....I don't see a scenario where only male football, and basketball players in schools that operate in the black get paid .  So, yes it will be redistribution.

Which is exactly my point.  You can go to college on a scholarship, take care of your educational business, be a great athlete on successful teams and end up with a great degree and a good job.  It's not those guys who are whining that they "need paid"...it's guys who don't see the value of what they're getting...and just think they should have more....yet they won't end up with a degree....due to nobody's fault but their own.

JH:  college athletes profit greatly...they get to play a game , attend school at a highly reduced rate, and given an education.  

And they aren't allowed to expand their profits beyond that, while other entities are allowed to expand their respective profits using the talents of those students.

Wait....your last post was about an HR guy interviewing a potential doctor.... You're  the doctor's education and the expenses they incurred to get to where they are has nothing to do with his ability to make more money?  So every graduate of every medical school is equal?   Do you think that a doctor will end up with the same skillset regardless of where they attended medical school?  Are the top medical schools the same cost as lesser quality medical schools?  

Matt,

 

capitalism at it's best

This applies to a minority of athletes. Scholarship money is rather limited in the majority of collegiate sports. Also, no one is "given" an education, class is hard work. I understand what you're saying and I'm mostly nitpicking there, so I apologize for that. This topic strikes a nerve with me.

 

I owe just under $100,000 in debt for my student loans. I worked very hard for my education and my collegiate baseball experience. However minimal my economic benefits would be, I'd like to have the opportunity to benefit from my skillset. I wasn't accepted into college on a "favor," my grades were good enough. I didn't receive any athletic scholarship money. 

 

 

 

And a pitcher with a 95 mph fastball would be more highly recruited than one with an 80 mph fastball. A 7'2" basketball player vs. a 6'2" basketball player. A linebacker running a 4.5 40 vs. a 5.0 40. These are all skillsets that could translate into profits, if the NCAA allowed it. The doctor's education is the foundation for a skillset by which he or she can profit. I'm sorry if you don't see the similarities.

 

JH:  I understand where you are coming from, and have always respected your posts .  I also don't think you believe your school benefited from your likeness, or from you playing baseball.  This is true for most college athletes.  A very few are in the category of being profited from.  Problem is you can't just pay those, and there is not enough to pay all.  Thanks for the banter.  Certainly appreciate your posts, and contribution!

 

Edit:  meant to say your college likely did not PROFIT from you playing baseball.  Certainly it was a benefit having you.

JH....you're the perfect example of a guy who should hate this thing.  The fact that you're supporting it based on what you've posted here is confusing.

 

College baseball players will see ZERO money if something like this goes thru...unless you're at LSU or Alabama where games routinely draw 10,000+.  The guys complaining are primarily major college football or basketball players...that are already on A FULL SCHOLARSHIP!!!   The $100,000 in loans you have is non-existent for those guys...because they don't have any.  As I said earlier, it's not the guys like you who went to class, worked hard and got a degree that are pushing for this...it certainly seems geared toward guys who don't take care of their educational issues, don't graduate and don't have any realworld job possibilities when they finish (or leave) school.  Why would you want to go to school....pay for your own education and get a degree and sit next to a kid getting a full ride PLUS money...who is barely passing the same classes  as you?  

 

I appreciate the sentiment, and I completely agree with you. But, I am also a believer in capitalism. I am well aware that my likeness, as a baseball player at a small school, is far different than that of, say, Johnny Manziel. But, why should Manziel not be able to benefit from his likeness, just because I can't? That's the thrust of my argument, simplified.

 

The problem is that colleges are wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  What SHOULD happen is colleges stop skirting their own admissions policies.  Admit only legitimate STUDENT athletes.  No pay... scholarships only. "The market" would then compensate with minor league football and basketball leagues, and players with no business in college in the first place could sign contracts straight out of HS...ie professional/college baseball model... But no money in that, comparatively.  This won't come to pass any time soon of course... way too much money at stake.  That's why to me the answer is for colleges to privatize their money sports... Create a fully formed minor league... And perhaps sell it off to the highest bidder (NFL, NBA).  That's the way to pull the billions out while getting out from under the mounting litigation.  Just wait until the class action concussion suits get going and take hold.

 

Interesting point. As I mentioned in my reply to Back foot slider above, I believe in true market capitalism. In essence, the NCAA is all but eliminating EVERY bit of that. Would I benefit directly from a change in the system? No, probably not. But someone will. If I had a skillset that is profitable, I would want to be compensated for that skillset.

 

I have absolutely no problem with paying college athletes be it with a stipend, allowing them to market their image or a flat out salary negotiated at sining. However if schools go to that I think it should come with a few changes in the current system.

1. No lowering of acedimic standards.
2. If the athlete does not graduate all scholarship money must be paid back.
3. Athletes must pay for use of that multimillion dollar facility they get to use for free.
4. Athletes must pay for the trainers, doctors, nutritionalists, physical theripist, and so forth that they currently have FREE access to.
5. They should be subject to fines.

The problem I see with the current argument is they seem to want all the benifits the regular student gets but none of the down side of it. If they want to be regular students fine. If they want to be employees fine but treat them completely like one.

My education was paid for by football. My job was obtained by my degree. All my possessions were paid for by my job. To me that is a pretty fair trade with the school I attended for playing football for them. The problem isn't playing football for a free education the problem is the athletes that are allowed into an institution of higher education that have no buisness in being there because they don't have the capacity to gain success from that alone.

infielddad:  see what you started?

 

 

My last post in this....the profitable skillsets if this thing happens will be football players and basketball players....likely no one else...and only at major colleges.  Those guys are already profitting....they are getting a FREE education.

 

I guess I should add something to this....as I've already mentioned my daughter who is currently in college and her accomplishments so far.

 

My son is a HS junior...and is hearing from some D1 schools for baseball.  Assuming he goes to a state school, the 25% minimum that he'll get will likely get him the same scholly money or more than what my daughter is getting?  Is that fair?  Not a chance....he PLAYS baseball...gets decent grades (nowhere close to her)...and will likely choose a college based on where he can play baseball, though I'm sure he'll graduate and get a degree.  The fact that he can earn the same amount of scholarship money as she did....just because he can play a sport is great...but no matter how much time he's put in, I don't feel he's "earned" a scholarship any more than she did....and certainly wouldn't expect him to be PAID to play a sport.