3 ms·

Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get t

by mbreese 12y ago

Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get to walk away with a degree without any debt. That's not trivial. However, the athletes are only able to actualize this compensation if they can freely choose their majors, are able to take the classes they want, and actually earn their education. By creating a secondary tier of classes, the school was deliberately exploiting them. I think that the value of a degree (for an athlete) will vary greatly depending on the school. Some schools are more academically rigorous for athletes than others... UNC apparently was on the low end of the scale.

washadjeffmad 12y ago
I think a brunt of the issue is that their exploitation is what is being used to generate that "significant value". Here's an article about the latest NCAA reform vote on [edit: student-]athlete compensation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUSKBN0G62EZ20140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUS...
- LanceH 12y ago
  If the athletes truly brought the value and it wasn't the schools and league itself, then the NBA's D-League would be raking in the billions and they could all play there. It turns out that people want to watch their school beat another school, and they aren't particular about the athletes. You can say the individuals bring value, but they destroy an equal amount of value at some other school when they succeed. Witness the last NBA lockout when the players had some all-star games and couldn't fill the seats. A mature competitive league is responsible for far more of the revenue than it gets credit for.
rodgerd 12y ago
> Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. Compare and contrast with the money an 18-21 year old second team player at Real Madrid or Barcelona makes and get back to me on the "significant value". Especially when the athletes are being funneled through second-rate degrees to free up their time for sport.
- cpwright 12y ago
  Or compare it to the AHL, where players make $70,000 (this is as of 2012-20130. The $70,000 figure is not hugely out-of-line with the cost of a year of tuition, room, and board at a good school. Once they make the leap to the NHL it goes up markedly to at least $525,000 (as of 2011-2012), and of course free agents make even more. I do think that most public colleges should get out of the business of fielding sports teams. Except for the best schools, they will not be a net positive financially.
- cafard 12y ago
  A fairer comparison might be to the pay received in US minor league baseball. These can go as high as $90 thousand. But you can also play at the highest level of minor league ball, AAA, and get $2150 per month. Having said that, I agree with you on the whole. They are being paid in kind: in room and board that they could get at home, and in tuition that doesn't seem to amount to much. I think that baseball's structure of minor leagues and Canadian hockey's junior hockey offer a better deal to the young athlete.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get to walk away with a degree without any debt. That's not trivial. The actual number comes down to around $25,000/year for public schools and $35,000/year for private schools. This is out-of-state tuition combined with living expenses and school supplies. However, it goes down significantly once the student establishes in-state residency. So basically, these college athletes are making working class wages while learning nothing of significant value. A few of them get into the major leagues upon graduation and the rest struggle with unemployment and underemployment for years. Being involved in college athletics costs them more in the long run than the paltry sum of expenses they get to waive over their college career.

by mbreese 12y ago

washadjeffmad 12y ago

I think a brunt of the issue is that their exploitation is what is being used to generate that "significant value". Here's an article about the latest NCAA reform vote on [edit: student-]athlete compensation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUSKBN0G62EZ20140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUS...

LanceH 12y ago
If the athletes truly brought the value and it wasn't the schools and league itself, then the NBA's D-League would be raking in the billions and they could all play there. It turns out that people want to watch their school beat another school, and they aren't particular about the athletes. You can say the individuals bring value, but they destroy an equal amount of value at some other school when they succeed. Witness the last NBA lockout when the players had some all-star games and couldn't fill the seats. A mature competitive league is responsible for far more of the revenue than it gets credit for.

rodgerd 12y ago

> Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. Compare and contrast with the money an 18-21 year old second team player at Real Madrid or Barcelona makes and get back to me on the "significant value". Especially when the athletes are being funneled through second-rate degrees to free up their time for sport.

cpwright 12y ago
Or compare it to the AHL, where players make $70,000 (this is as of 2012-20130. The $70,000 figure is not hugely out-of-line with the cost of a year of tuition, room, and board at a good school. Once they make the leap to the NHL it goes up markedly to at least $525,000 (as of 2011-2012), and of course free agents make even more. I do think that most public colleges should get out of the business of fielding sports teams. Except for the best schools, they will not be a net positive financially.
cafard 12y ago
A fairer comparison might be to the pay received in US minor league baseball. These can go as high as $90 thousand. But you can also play at the highest level of minor league ball, AAA, and get $2150 per month. Having said that, I agree with you on the whole. They are being paid in kind: in room and board that they could get at home, and in tuition that doesn't seem to amount to much. I think that baseball's structure of minor leagues and Canadian hockey's junior hockey offer a better deal to the young athlete.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get to walk away with a degree without any debt. That's not trivial. The actual number comes down to around $25,000/year for public schools and $35,000/year for private schools. This is out-of-state tuition combined with living expenses and school supplies. However, it goes down significantly once the student establishes in-state residency. So basically, these college athletes are making working class wages while learning nothing of significant value. A few of them get into the major leagues upon graduation and the rest struggle with unemployment and underemployment for years. Being involved in college athletics costs them more in the long run than the paltry sum of expenses they get to waive over their college career.