Paying student athletes: yay or nay?

[Will Baizer]

So recently VT Hokies DC stated that VT plans to discipline students by fining them from cost-of-attendance funds
 

— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");
 
So this has sparked a huge debate on the twittersphere once again on the payment student athletes.
 
Chris Hall (former OT for Texas) brought up an interesting point on this whole thing saying:
 
— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");
 
This got me thinking So then how would it change the dynamic of the college game to pay them? Is it still college football and does that even matter?
So the obvious problem with not paying the athletes is apparent: schools make a bunch of money off the student athletes, NCAA has full control over their person and they can't make money off of themselves, no workers comp, there are men who are payed a lot of money to yell at what amounts to free labor (American History 101), and academics basically come second for many D1 institutions and thus athletes so the "payment with scholarship" argument is a little bogus. 

However the problem with paying the athletes is spelled out by Chris Hall's tweet. Right now the allure of college sports in general is the amateurism. While that might seem a little weak of an argument while faced with the multi-million industry that is college sports, it still stands very true. You change the amateurism of the game and there is an element that makes the NCAA basically a watered down NFL, which is what scares the NCAA (that and significant loss of profit, but the way things are moving it looks like this is an inevitability). What makes college sports magical and gives it that small edge over the NFL which makes it competitive with the NFL is throw out the door. This could lead to the dissolution of the NCAA as we know it.

But then it is easy to point to the Olympics as a counter example

So lets meet half way at a happy medium. I think I have two solutions which may or may not have been offered before (to be honest haven't checked).

1.) Allow the student athletes to have sponsorships

A lot of the rules that were put in place were to ensure that student athletes stayed students and didn't get more benefits than a normal student would. The NCAA, college athletes are contractually forbidden from receiving any kind of monetary compensation. That means they can not receive wages, and are also prohibited from accepting sponsorship deals or any other kind of publicity-related payouts. Personally I don't see how sponsorships can take away from the "amateurism" aspect of the game as long as they don't get out of hand. This way schools are not paying out of pocket and student athletes are able to "get theirs."

2.) Revenue shaving

Many colleges are "non-profit" organizations. They do this a lot of the time by unnecessary spending to keep their non-profit status. Basically a simple way to make sure the athletes do not get paid while they're amateurs, are able to "get theirs", and have what would amount to work man's comp is to do the following. Once the student gets a scholarship, they are signed up for a program that takes a share of money that takes a percentage of the revenue their sport makes for the four years they're in college. Once they are out of college they are able to dip into this stash of money. So lets say a team makes $50 mil in rev on football a year. Shave off 2% gives you $1mil. So you've got that split 85 ways per year is about $12k. Over 4 years you've got $48k.

Imperfect I know, but it's a start. Just something I've been thinking about while sitting in this cafe.

Please poke holes on this. I'd love to discuss this further.

Here's John Oliver's thoughts on this

 

[utisdabomb12]

Seems like Bud Foster is getting a lot of criticism for this, but I agree with him. 

 

[Will Baizer]

Here is another article on this

http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2015/03/27/college-athletes-get-paid/

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

This got me thinking So then how would it change the dynamic of the college game to pay them? Is it still college football and does that even matter?

IMO, it's hard to believe free tuition, room & board, books, and meals aren't enough for these "collegiate" athletes. Reality is less than 2% will play professional ball. Is it BIG BUSINESS? Absolutely, but I think giving them "cost of actual attendance" stipends fixed nothing. The cheaters are still gonna cheat.

D-1 NCAA sports are now semi-pro for all practical purposes. I'd rather it be more collegiate like the good ol' days.

 

[Godz40acres]

— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

That may be true, but talk about a can of worms...

Before a coach could do that, it would have to be stated in a contract a player signed. That contract would have to be specific to the institution as there are some schools who would want more explicit details regarding areas of conduct (religious based universities) and some who would prefer less (any SEC school). Now, we're talkin' courts and trials and an unnecessary morass; topped off by legal fees, awards, settlements and years of distractions.

This is a potential nightmare.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

The more coaches talk about withholding "stipends" the more I'm thinking this money is just a kickback and completely unnecessary. "Cost of living", my ass.

— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

 

[primal defense]

Foster and Tuberville are full of it, especially, Tuberville. The guy was eating with recruits for Texas Tech, left the table and the next thing the recruits knew he was in Cincinnati.

This is a good article.

How Virginia Tech Football Fines Undermine the NCAA

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/how-virginia-tech-football-fines-undermine-the-ncaa

 

[primal defense]

Foster makes a million a year and Tuberville makes two million and they want to fine college students that are getting five to seven thousand a year.

That makes sense. Foster and Tuberville should go to the NFL if they can't discipline their players without fining them.

Virginia Tech's idea to fine players is utterly insane

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/virginia-tech-hokies-fines-student-athletes-bud-foster-usc-sarkisian-baylor-briles-082715

 

[primal defense]

If this is an example of the Cincinnati brain power then I don't want them in the Big 12.

Inside College Sports: Can Cincinnati get away with fining its players?

Cincinnati coach Tommy Tuberville and Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster gave voice to a theory some people have believed for a while: Cost of attendance (COA) is not so much the new value of a scholarship as it is giving new cash to players in exchange for athletic participation. Tuberville and Foster said this week they have considered withholding cost of attendance stipends from players for disciplinary reasons, causing some athletic directors across the country to cringe.

While Cincinnati is standing by this idea, Virginia Tech athletic director Whit Babcock quickly walked back Foster's comments and said a proposed fine system won't happen. Taking any money "out of cost of attendance would not be permissible and I shut it all down," Babcock told The Roanoke Times on Wednesday. The Richmond Times-Dispatch on Thursday showed a television monitor outside the Virginia Tech players' lounge that listed what appeared to be a fine structure and named players who had been assessed fines. Presumably, coach Frank Beamer must have had a say in these fines, which included $10 for missing a team breakfast or tutoring session, $45 for missing a class, $100 for drawing a personal foul penalty, and $100 and the loss of four tickets for improper equipment. The maximum fine could be $1,600 for a seventh offense. The screen showed five players had been fined a total of $330.

"If you're not paying them, why are you fining them?" asked Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for Ed O'Bannon in a case that could allow athletes to be paid for use of their name, image and likeness. "This goes to the whole concept that the players are theirs as servants to the master. You want to punish them? Give them some rights. There has to be some sort of balance in the relationship."

Generally speaking, reducing money from an athlete's cost of attendance stipend or any other portion of the scholarship is not acceptable under NCAA rules. But schools have been allowed to reduce financial aid if he or she signs an agreement with certain non-athletic conditions in advance of the award period. A personal foul penalty would appear to represent an athletic condition. The NCAA did not respond with a comment for this article.

"The NCAA is pretty non-specific on what non-athletic conditions can be in an aid agreement," said Ryan Squire, Illinois associate athletic director for compliance. "They don't give us much guidance. Most schools put something in their agreement that aid can be reduced or cancelled for reasons such as violation of team rules or arrests."

Fining players from their scholarship money "shows it's an employee/employer relationship," said National Collegiate Players Association executive director Ramogi Huma, who was unsuccessful trying to get the National Labor Relations Board to recognize Northwestern football players as employees who can unionize. "Whether they can do this under NCAA rules or not, it shows the mindset of how these coaches are considering treating their players like property."

Tuberville's comments, first reported by ESPN and reiterated in a statement to CBS Sports, stressed that a player's effort off the field -- not on the field -- would factor into withholding COA. Cincinnati AD Mike Bohn told CBS Sports he's frustrated by the perception that his athletic department could "fine" players. "We have simply helped our student-athletes know of our commitment to their success and our investment in them and what is at risk in the event they violate existing policies, procedures and team rules," Bohn said.

Cincinnati has the highest COA figure in FBS, according to a CBS Sports survey. Bearcats senior associate AD Maggie McKinley said the school's language in players' financial aid agreements clearly spells out if they violate university, athletic department or team policies that their scholarship could be reduced or cancelled. Team rules can vary and be vague. Could a Cincinnati player's COA be reduced if he is struggling academically but still eligible? McKinley said not unless that was clearly spelled out in the financial aid agreement. She added that being ineligible and in danger of ineligibility are "two very different things."

Could COA be reduced if a player misses team meetings? "I think to insinuate that's what we're after would be an exaggeration," Bohn said. "No, coaches at the University of Cincinnati don't have autonomy to address those without engaging the entire campus." As an example of how COA could be reduced, Bohn cited violating the law, such as assault charges. Bohn said Cincinnati is no different than other schools.

"This has nothing to do with football performance," Tuberville said in a statement. "We have high standards our players will uphold and they will be held accountable. We will never duck from our commitment to support our student-athletes, but they know we expect them to be great citizens."

Tuberville told the athletic department's website that “we're trying to keep these kids from being in debt when they get out of college.†Cincinnati is distributing cost of attendance stipends over a 10-month period. The idea is to have scholarship money available in their account to cover charges such as not returning rented books, damaging a dorm room or running up parking tickets, according to Cincinnati.

“So what's happened in the past is we had kids here, they get all this scholarship money, they get everything paid for, and they rack up all these charges, which they shouldn't,†Tuberville said. “Then they've got to go take a student loan out, that's 10 or 15 percent (interest) and when they graduate they've got $20,000 in student loans, which is ridiculous.â€

The fascinating part of this conversation -- other than wondering how many parking tickets and damaged rooms Cincinnati athletes are actually leaving behind -- is seeing some coaches openly acknowledge their desire for money to incentivize certain conduct for players and the reaction to this interest. This isn't what college sports leaders had in mind. It's another issue they're having to navigate in the new world of COA.

"I think that would be the wrong thing to do because cost of attendance isn't being given to hang over a student-athlete's head," Arizona AD Greg Byrne said. "It's given for them to help with their day-to-day living and expenses going to college. If you choose as a program not to (provide COA) because that's where you are financially, that's the reality. But you shouldn't choose not to do it because of discipline. Take away playing time. Make them do community service. Run stairs. There are lots of things you can do."

"I just wouldn't want to take a kid's money," said another Power Five athletic director, who asked to remain anonymous. "The optics of it are just awful. Let me see: White man making $4 million a year tells a kid that he's going to take some of his scholarship money?" This athletic director said the better approach is documenting all of the missteps by an athlete and using those to dismiss the player if necessary, not reduce financial aid. "We document like crazy and we've never lost (an appeal to the university)," the person said.

This discussion comes a week after the NLRB dismissed Northwestern football players' petition to attempt to form a union. The NLRB didn't rule on the question of whether the players are university employees. The pending O'Bannon and Jeffrey Kessler cases in court could allow players to be paid above their scholarship, including cost of attendance.

Kessler, the attorney suing the NCAA and its major conferences for a free market for players, said he is not familiar with some schools' proposals to reduce COA money. "I'll refrain from commenting until I know what's being done," Kessler said.

Arizona AD: School spends $89,000 per athlete

Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne estimated that his department will spend on average $89,000 per athlete this year. How is that being counted? Byrne said the figure includes scholarships, food, clothing, equipment and travel; portions also account for the training room and strength and conditioning. Administrative and coaches' salaries are not part of the average.

In recent months, some Division I athletic directors have taken this approach in an effort to show how much they're spending on players amid litigation. Of course, some of these costs also benefit the school because they're trying to compete at a high level. "It helps us compete," Byrne said. "I don't think that's a bad thing."

Playing devil's advocate, should the schools permit the players to have a say in what they're spending money on for them? Maybe players would want some of that money in their pocket instead of elaborate food or facilities. "I don't think the food is too elaborate, and I think the facility is important to them," Byrne said. "Student-athletes have made very clear they want a good environment to train in and study in and develop in."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25282750/inside-college-sports-can-cincinnati-get-away-with-fining-its-players

 

[primal defense]

Now these are some rules I can get behind.

Friday Five: Five things college football coaches should be fined over

This week Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster unintentionally set off a firestorm. Foster told reporters that the Virginia Tech coaching staff was trying to figure out if it could fine players by taking money from their new cost of attendance scholarships. We then learned that Virginia Tech coaches had already been fining players for various infractions, and when the school's athletic director, Whit Babcock, found out, he correctly put an end to the practice.

But it'd be foolish to think that Virginia Tech is the only place where this has happened, and we now know for a fact that it's not the only school that thinks fining unpaid student-athletes would be a good idea, as Cincinnati has jumped on the bandwagon too.

This all got me to thinking. If coaches are so enthused about the idea of fining their players -- who don't get paid, and can't have jobs -- I think it's only fair that we should be able to levy fines against millionaire coaches for doing things we don't want them to do.

So for this week's Friday Five I've come up with five things I'd like to see coaches fined for. I mean, coaches get all sorts of different kinds of bonuses for accomplishing things, they should get fined too. It's only fair.

5. A Bad Team GPA: Plenty of coaches have bonuses in their contracts that go into effect if their team's collective GPA meets a certain standard. But you know what's more motivating than the prospect of earning more money? The chance to lose it. So I say coaches should be fined if their team GPA isn't high enough. I mean, these are student-athletes after all, right? Administrators and coaches are always so quick to point that out.

So I'm thinking that, if your team has a GPA of 3.5 or higher, you don't lose any money. But if your team has a GPA of 2.5? Well that should be a $100,000 fine. Between 3.0 and 3.4, that's only a $50,000 fine, with the fine increasing by another $50,000 for every half-point range down to zero.

4. For Players Getting Arrested: You know the real reason coaches want to be able to fine players money? They'll probably tell you what I've already told you. The desire to not lose money will motivate somebody to do the right thing. But when the coaches tell you that, they won't be being completely honest.

The reason coaches want to fine players is because, if a player commits a minor infraction (say he fails a drug test), it sure is better for the coach to take $100 from the player rather than force him to sit out a game. If a player has to sit out a game or two, that might lead to losses, and no coach wants to lose games. So now they have a way to punish the player, but do so without jeopardizing their own jobs!

Well, I think the best way to help make sure coaches keep players out of trouble is to fine coaches for every possible infraction one of their players commits. The fines will vary based on the offense, but they will be doled out, and they will be paid in a timely fashion, thank you very much.

3. Bad Clock Management: Oh you're damn right these fines are going to apply to in-game decisions as well. Think about it. How many times have you been at home watching a game and found yourself completely baffled by the way the coach of your favorite team manages his timeouts? Like, do you not know you have them, or when to use them? If I can figure it out while watching at home, you would think the guy who is actually paid to run the football team and help devise team strategy would know.

But so often they don't.

I mean, if these fines actually existed, Les Miles might be bankrupt by now.

Obviously the fines would vary by the offense. Burning a timeout early in the first quarter is bad, but it shouldn't be as large a fine as calling a run play at midfield when you're out of timeouts and there are only 35 seconds left in the game.

Whatever fines we figure out, I bet coaches would be a lot smarter about managing the clock in a hurry.

2. For Calling A Goal Line Fade: Man do I hate when coaches do this. It just feels like such a lazy call. I get the idea. If you have a big receiver, you're putting faith in him to win a one-on-one battle with a defender for a jump ball. It seems easy in theory, but in practice, it's very much not.

If you watch enough college football during the season, you'll see this play called a hundred times, and you might see it work 10.

The reason for this is, while the play itself is rather simple, a lot of college quarterbacks really just can't make the throw. Nine times out of 10, when it fails, it's not on the receiver, and it's not because the defender makes a great play, it's because the quarterback messed up the throw.

Now some quarterbacks can, and if you have that quarterback, and the play works more often than not, keep calling it. But if you have a quarterback that's shown time and time again that it's just not a throw he can make, stop calling it.

In order to ensure this happens, for every goal line fade play called that results in an incompletion, a coach shall be fined $25,000.

1. Punting In Your Opponent's Territory: I understand this decision. I do. This is college football, not the NFL. Not every team has a kicker capable of blasting a 55-yard field goal with ease. Because of this coaches are more inclined to fold their hand and punt the ball to play the field position game.

See? I get it. I just find it boring as hell. I'm watching college football to be entertained, after all.

So I would levy fines against coaches who punt the ball inside their opponent's territory rather than just going for it. Now, obviously, there are different situations to account for here. If it's fourth and 15 and your opponent's 42-yard line, go ahead, punt without consequence. That makes sense?

But if it's fourth-and-seven? You better go for it, coach.

So if it's anything less than fourth-and-7 you must go for it if you have the ball between the 50-yard line and your opponent's 40. If you don't, you shall be fined $50,000.

Now, if you have the ball inside your opponents 40-yard line and it's fourth down, you are going for it or attempting the field goal. I don't care how many yards you need to gain. If you punt from the 39-yard line or further, you will be fined $100,000.

If it were possible, we'd have you arrested too, and as we went over earlier, that would be another fine.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25283294/friday-five-five-things-coaches-should-be-fined-for