Shooter: Joel Maturi questions paying college athletes

Donate To GopherHole

Funny.
We question paying him too.
 

God he's dumb. The whole concept is finding a way to become smarter. I think everyone can agree there are flaws in the current system - simply saying "we don't need to change anything" is stupid. I now feel dumber for having read that
 

He has to be the dumbest son of bitch alive. He wants us, the tax payers (ie federal government by way of pell grants funded by our federal tax dollars) to give money to his football/basketball players while the U pockets not only tens of millions from Mn tax payers but also while they pocket tens of millions from the efforts of said football/basketball players? The hell with being an AD dude should become a pimp. "listen here baby; you don't want your man driving in a 1-year old Cadillac do you? Now get on out there and get my money! What, you hungry? You don't need no money, go apply for welfare.)

How about this? How about athletes from revenue producing sports not be allowed to get pell grants and the schools they attend are forced to provide for their needs through the revenues said athletes generate for the school?
 

By the way I do know this is the case now (pell grants) but it shouldn't be, and he should be smart enough not to point that out.
 


Athletic Director

Whoever replaces our current AD (when that time comes, hopefully sooner than later) that new hire will have a full-plate of things that will need to get done short-term and long-term. The current today list is long and hopefully our new U Pres Dr. K is up on these:

*Complete on-campus baseball facility fundraising and see the project through
*Basketball practice facility
*Upgrading Williams Arena
*Complete coaching contracts (Kill, Smith, etc.)
*Focus on the revenue producing sports (this needs to happen if they want to continue to have 24 teams). Winning revenue producing teams = tickets being sold = more revenue coming in = everyone is basically happy

The revenue producing teams stir the pot for the rest of the non-revenue producing teams.

I am sure there are many other things that the new AD will need to do that I am missing here.
 

I'm sorry let me get this straight...

100% agree that the number of hours associated with being a football player, whether counted by the NCAA or not, is much more than 600. I'll even spot the extra hours cited by many sources as being part of tutor sessions, study halls, etc (by the way are free of charge and not included in the tuition/fees/room/board cost calculation and go towards an education in ADDITION to the prospect of a pro career in the sport they chose). Let's say a student athlete (well, football player since other athletes like volleyball, rowing, etc put in FAR less time) truly does put in, on average, 40 hours a week towards their sport for a whole year. That's full-time, 2,080 work hours in a year. What is their benefit?

Let's use the University of Minnesota - a pretty typical public university in terms of cost of attendance (some are more, some less, private schools much higher). Total cost of attendance covered by the U of M this year are $21,788 (in-state student tuition) or $26,788 (out-of state tuition). If you divide that out for a full-scholarship athlete, they are being compensated at $10.48/hour (in-state residents) or $12.88 (non-MN residents). I will actually put that number higher since the value of the education they receive (if taken as a "pay") is one that wasn't taxed. If that hourly rate was post-tax, social security, medicare, etc that comes out of a normal pay check (roughly 30% in total for a hard-working MN resident), the pre-taxed hourly pay is $14.96/$18.40. That's a pretty good pay (read: better rate than internships for engineering or business students would receive over a summer of work).

Also consider that students with no financial aid (parents, government, etc) can get an on-campus job to help pay down that tuition is allowed to work at least 10 hours but a maximum of 40 hours per week during the school year (sounds like an athlete to me) and get paid more along the lines of $8.50/hour (pre-tax) money, but not to exceed the amount awarded by the school for financial aid. They could also go work at local restaurants or shops making just above minimum wage, maybe additional tips. They then have to find their own time to study for school and if they want a tutor, they'd have to pay for that as well.

Also keep in mind the room and board covered by the school (UMN in this case) is $7,724 per year, which averaged out is $644/month for food and rent. Also factor in the number of meals provided for them - dinners after practice, any meal on any trips, meals the night before or day-of games, etc. Also factor in the gear they receive - workout clothes, university apparel, bags, etc that are free of charge.

At the end of the day, these student-athletes have received an education in any field they want, room and food, assistance in class free of charge, and books/supplies covered ($1,000/year), plus additional free meals to help drive food costs down. They ALSO had access to top-notch athletic facilities, trainers, staff, medical care, and more that helped them get better at a sport they may pursue a professional career in. So they have 2 career options instead of the 1 a normal student would have.

My numbers were conservative (high on the hours put in, low on the cost - not including tutors, food, clothing as part of the package) and the student athletes still come out pretty good.

For those with half or partial scholarships the numbers still work out in their favor over just getting a regular job AND they get to play a game they love with the possibility of getting a full-ride in the future. Add in the possibility of pell-grants for students without full (or any) scholarships and it doesn't seem at all like they need to be "paid" additional money to me...

Oh yeah, one last thing... the students CHOSE to take part in this system. In fact, many are granted the opportunity to attend a university they otherwise wouldn't have been able to attend, which makes the value of the education they're getting MUCH higher.
 

Joel Maturi needs to shut the fuc& up and keep quiet until Kaler cans his @ss. That SOB is raping the U for half a mil a yr, plus whatever Wisconsin pays him, he should be contributing.
 

Railbaronyarr, you can't possibly be serious? Besides the fact that you completely ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars being generated by these student athletes for their universities, multimillionaire coaches, grossly overpaid AD's, grossly overpaid NCAA executive staff, grossly overpaid bowl representatives who run these bogus nonprofit bowl organizations.

With all do respect you are off on some of your assertions. These kids don't get free medical unless the parents don't have health insurance. Everyone in the above paragraph does. Not all football or basketball players are on scholarship so it throws your math way off. The families of the staff get way more free "swag" than the athletes; charted flights to bowl games, 5 star Hotels and not to mention their spouses absorbent salaries.

So to summarize:

The athletes generate tens of millions for the schools, the schools claim nonprofit status pay multimillion dollar salaries and depend on everyone else to fill in the income gaps for it's athletes/bell cows.

I believe the universities should be responsible. The scholarships should be full ride (they are not), income shortfalls should not be the responsibility of tax payers, athletes of revenue producing sports should not eligible for pell grants.
 



Sportsfan24 said:
Railbaronyarr, you can't possibly be serious? Besides the fact that you completely ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars being generated by these student athletes for their universities, multimillionaire coaches, grossly overpaid AD's, grossly overpaid NCAA executive staff, grossly overpaid bowl representatives who run these bogus nonprofit bowl organizations.

With all do respect you are off on some of your assertions. These kids don't get free medical unless the parents don't have health insurance. Everyone in the above paragraph does. Not all football or basketball players are on scholarship so it throws your math way off. The families of the staff get way more free "swag" than the athletes; charted flights to bowl games, 5 star Hotels and not to mention their spouses absorbent salaries.

So to summarize:

The athletes generate tens of millions for the schools, the schools claim nonprofit status pay multimillion dollar salaries and depend on everyone else to fill in the income gaps for it's athletes/bell cows.

I believe the universities should be responsible. The scholarships should be full ride (they are not), income shortfalls should not be the responsibility of tax payers, athletes of revenue producing sports should not eligible for pell grants.
Click to expand...

I work for a publicly held company where me (marketing), 3-4 engineers, 2 operations, 3 manufacturing engineers, and about 8 floor production people's salary (plus raw material cost) nets the company over $40 million dollars a year for our product line. DO our salaries equal that all divvied up? Hell no. And that's just the private sector.

Non-profit organizations need to pay their employees and particularly directors, VPs, and presidents large sums of money to ensure they are marketed and executed properly to fulfill their mission. A university is no different. You may think ADs, coaches, etc are grossly overpaid, but they NEED to be people who are educated and good at running organizations: financially, strategically, personel management, etc. If it were a for-profit body why do 90+% of athletic departments still require money from the general university fund? The mission of the athletics department is to funnel money from revenue sports to support other ones to engender the growth of athletes at a higher level than HS in this state/country at an amateur level, for both males and females of many sports.

The athletes DO get medical treatment: treatment for injuries, care after games, etc. They can even take out insurance policies during college on their bodies (look up Eric Decker and many others who have done this).

You are right there are more athletes on a football squad than scholarships. There are 85 scholarships and 117 current football roster players. Again I state that the remaining members CHOOSE to be on the team to either play a sport they love, play for their university, or hopefully earn a scholarship (or some combination). Basketball 13 are allowed and we currently have 15. Not exactly proving your point. Beyond that I believe I made perfectly clear how very conservative my numbers were (hours being on the high side, total 'payment' given to them on the low side due to excluding certain things).

Quantify or prove families of staff getting more 'swag' than the players?

Why should student-athletes not qualify for a pell-grant? Let's make a corollary. Very bright student attends the U. Not bright enough for a full-ride, or even partial scholarship. Maybe $2,000 a year for 2 years. But family and he/she can't afford all of tuition/fees/room/board for a full year. Qualifies for a federal pell grant to help cover cost. While at the U works for a professor or department at an agreed-upon salary/wage doing research work as part of work-study (filling in the gap the pell-grant couldn't cover). The research he CONTRIBUTED to made the university millions in donations, patent money, etc. Shouldn't he be paid more than his wage? That fat cat professor making $400k that year doesn't deserve it all!! How about this: the student recognized that taking part in that opportunity satisfied a short-term need for money to help pay for school and living but also served a longer-term purpose by gaining knowledge and experience he otherwise wouldn't have gained. He helped his university gain notoriety and respect and that money went to help other departments within his college or the whole university to keep other programs afloat. Sound similar???

Also, keep in mind that it isn't JUST the athletes making the university the millions you're complaining about. There are many other aspects that go in to a college game that bring in the money from the university via student workers who are "underpaid": the marching band and the atmosphere they bring (all 300+ members 100% unpaid), student workers for the Big Ten Network on internship through the U working cameras, lighting, etc that make the BTN possible to broadcast and bring in all that $$, student interns for the athletic department driving ticket sales, ad promotions, etc that bring in millions. Why aren't you calling for them to get paid the big bucks???
 

My man, you are all over the place trying to prove your point (lol).

You start off by comparing you and your coworkers salaries to the net profit of your department. A more apt comparison would be your boss whom I doubt makes several hundred percent more than you. And may I add; while asking tax payers to subsidize your substandard living condition.

I assume you are not aware of this but nobody pays to see the student workers or interns. I don't recall seeing their likeness in magazines or on sports center. I would also add that college athlete in revenue producing sports don't work in some vague, unidentified and hardly recognized just about anyone can do what they are being asked to do position. These athletes ARE the reason for the money. Don't believe me? The Boise State kicker missed a kick a few years back that cost the school millions.

The marching band? COME ON MAN! The last time a marching band had any effect on a game Darin Nelson was playing for Stanford.
 

Title IX would never let a football player receive a larger stipend than any female student-athlete. NEVER.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
My man, you are all over the place trying to prove your point (lol).

You start off by comparing you and your coworkers salaries to the net profit of your department. A more apt comparison would be your boss whom I doubt makes several hundred percent more than you. And may I add; while asking tax payers to subsidize your substandard living condition.

I assume you are not aware of this but nobody pays to see the student workers or interns. I don't recall seeing their likeness in magazines or on sports center. I would also add that college athlete in revenue producing sports don't work in some vague, unidentified and hardly recognized just about anyone can do what they are being asked to do position. These athletes ARE the reason for the money. Don't believe me? The Boise State kicker missed a kick a few years back that cost the school millions.

The marching band? COME ON MAN! The last time a marching band had any effect on a game Darin Nelson was playing for Stanford.
Click to expand...

Having an effect on the outcome of a game and having an effect on the experience of watching college football are different things. There are many people that do pay to watch people at a football game who aren't paid or on scholarship whose likeness is used in U of M media, on SportsCenter, College Gameday, etc for free (the U makes you sign an agreement in fact). Marching Bands, cheerleaders, spirit squads, dance line, people in the mascot uniform, etc. And yes, I guarantee you these ALL play in to why people pay to attend a college football game. In fact, here, here, and here all tend to agree that the BEST college football tradition is that of a marching band. Don't forget all TV games pan across the bands and cheerleaders when they score, they pipe in music from the band on the tv networks so everyone watching can hear what it's like to be in a stadium, etc etc.

I'm all over the board because there's just so many ways to show that players do not need, nor should they receive payment beyond their scholarship for playing a sport.

You are right my example of my company is not apt since it points out that for-profit companies operate in a way that pays their lowest employees less than the sum of its revenue or profit. I should have just stuck to the example of thousands of non-profit companies who make money for a goal yet still need to pay their employees (akin to the AD, coaching staff, etc) to make it work. At the end of the day, most athletic departments are not profitable. They still require funding from the university/state to run the rest of the programs. The ones that do turn a profit put that money back in to the institution to keep general student costs down, fund research, etc that are, again, not for profit but achieving a mission of higher education.

Sub-standard living conditions? That money they get covers on-campus apartments which, in addition to having 0 commute, are more than adequate. I'm confused why you keep throwing in un-qualified statements like that to try to prove your point.

If you propose paying players, is it only in sports that turn a profit? Do you use a national average for which sports are profitable and which aren't? At the end of the day you are taking money FROM other sports (men's baseball, women's volleyball, wrestling, women's soccer, etc) to fund the revenue sports' players. Solely because more people tune in to watch them. Oh and by the way if you're doing that you're going to end up requiring MORE taxpayer money to fund the other sports since money is coming out of an already-not-profitable athletic department. Don't even consider the Title IX implications for doing this since I doubt there are many female sports that turn a profit.

Why not ONLY have men's basketball and football as our sports? We can keep hockey because it's profitable but I bet we won't end up playing anyone since not many college hockey programs make money. Oh well.
 




stcgopher said:
Joel Maturi needs to shut the fuc& up and keep quiet until Kaler cans his @ss. That SOB is raping the U for half a mil a yr, plus whatever Wisconsin pays him, he should be contributing.
Click to expand...

this! freakin' becky badger joel maturi.........
 

The marching band puts in a work load well over 500 hours every fall season. That is equivalent to a practice schedule of some D1 sports teams. In addition, these students have a full course schedule, most don't have jobs, and they have to pay to be in the band. The band is not compensated. Occasionally, athletics or the U promises compensation via free food before a performance. Sometimes these promises come up short on quantity estimates.

Would the band like to be compensated? Sure, who wouldn't? Would the band feel it is appropriate to be compensated? No. The band members chose to be there. They wouldn't have it any other way. no band members would advocate for a paycheck.

For the record, UW schools pay their PEP bands for every performance.

That being said, many posters on here can be quoted for saying they paid to see the band and all the pageantry that goes along with the game. To say you don't pay to see the band is false.

Paying players opens the flood gates to a scary place. Picture schools legally buying recruits with higher salaries. Volleyball teams striking because they don't get paid. This is amateur sports. Amateurs are not paid. Media contracts made college football what it is today. Most players get a free education that they don't take advantage of. Perhaps a monthly allowance to cover basic living expenses based on costs for respective campuses is appropriate. But only with heavy regulation by the NCAA.
 

GopherInPittsburgh said:
Title IX would never let a football player receive a larger stipend than any female student-athlete. NEVER.
Click to expand...

+1

This point is rarely brought up when this discussion occurs. FB and Men's BB might bring in large revenues for several universities across the country but the vast majority of those institutions are barely in the black or flat out in the red when paying for the non-revenue sports. The reason: Title IX. So now we're supposed to believe that Title IX will allow that small sliver of revenues still left over be given to the revenue sports only to pay the student-athletes?

Not happenning in the current system. The only way FB and Men's BB players get paid is if univerisites completely rid themselves of all non-revenue sports to the point where there's just enough female sports to cover the 98 scholarships (85 FB + 13 BB) on the combined FB and Men's BB teams. Even then you're paying 98 females the exact same amount required under federal law. Not many programs outside of Texas and tOSU can afford to pay 196 student athletes more than pizza money.

The numbers just don't add up.
 

Players weren't paid before Title IX, therefore, Title IX isn't the reason that players aren't paid.
 

"The only way FB and Men's BB players get paid is if univerisites completely rid themselves of all non-revenue sports"

So then the difference between Pro and College sports would be what then?

Paying players more then they get now is just another way the rich conferences are trying to crush the little guys. If paying hundreds of kids to find out who can make it in the Pros is a good idea then the Pros would do it. They're not rushing to do that.

The NFL and what's left of the NBA have seen how costly it is for MLB to operate a farm system. Both leagues want the colleges to do it for them. The NBA's NBDL has pretty much been a failure. The NFL certainly doesn't want to try it themselves. Why should they? The colleges provide not only the farm system but a years long showcase for their players. The NBA? Who does "one and done" benefit more? The handful of schools that use those players to get to the tourney or the NBA which gets a free evaluation and a major showcase for their players?

What the colleges should do is call the bluff. Make the Pros pay for services given. If not, make scholarships tightly tied to graduation rate. Massively prune the rule book and let the Pros and their acolytes fend for themselves.

The theory is that College Fans support the uniform not the players. Let's test it and "boo hoo" to all the ACC/SEC schools who don't have pro teams.
 

RodentRampage said:
Players weren't paid before Title IX, therefore, Title IX isn't the reason that players aren't paid.
Click to expand...

Huh? That makes no sense. Title IX is the reason why it's not feasible to play student-athletes. You'd have to pay everyone, not just the revenue sports and the reason so many non-revenue sports exist is because of Title IX.
 

College athletes should not be paid. I don't care how much money they make these schools, make the scholarship a true full-ride and don't pay the players.
 

Pewterschmidt said:
Huh? That makes no sense. Title IX is the reason why it's not feasible to play student-athletes. You'd have to pay everyone, not just the revenue sports and the reason so many non-revenue sports exist is because of Title IX.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. Nothing could be simpler. The policy of not paying athletes is many decades older than the Title IX. Do you dispute this? Therefore, the reason that players are not paid has nothing to do with Title IX.

There are those who claim that there are colleges who secretly want to leave the NCAA so they can pay players, but Title IX would require them to pay all athletes, so they don't bother to leave the NCAA. Evidence that there is a movement among university presidents and regents to leave the NCAA is never offered, of course. And it is by no means clear that Title IX would require male and female athletes to be paid equally, that's been asserted, but never tested. Would all football players be paid the same amount? If starters were paid more than third stringers, then you've already established that players are not paid equally.
 

RodentRampage said:
It makes perfect sense. Nothing could be simpler. The policy of not paying athletes is many decades older than the Title IX. Do you dispute this? Therefore, the reason that players are not paid has nothing to do with Title IX.

There are those who claim that there are colleges who secretly want to leave the NCAA so they can pay players, but Title IX would require them to pay all athletes, so they don't bother to leave the NCAA. Evidence that there is a movement among university presidents and regents to leave the NCAA is never offered, of course. And it is by no means clear that Title IX would require male and female athletes to be paid equally, that's been asserted, but never tested. Would all football players be paid the same amount? If starters were paid more than third stringers, then you've already established that players are not paid equally.
Click to expand...
We've been through this before, but prior to Title IX in 1972, Football wasn't generating the profits it is now. The gophers were not playing on the Big Ten Network, selling private suites, or earning millions from bowl games. Athletes at all levels prior to title IX, simply weren't worth what they are today. If you were correct, no way would we be having lockouts in the NFL and NBA. The average NBA salary in 1958 was $12,000, which would be about $90k in today's dollars. WNBA players are making more than that in their short 4month season.

Besides, if you don't think removing Title IX would result in paying players what they're worth, then why not repeal it anyway?
 

If you were correct, no way would we be having lockouts in the NFL and NBA. The average NBA salary in 1958 was $12,000, which would be about $90k in today's dollars. WNBA players are making more than that in their short 4month season.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. Whether or not players should be paid has nothing to do with the salaries paid to professional athletes.

For your position to be correct, players would have to have been paid before Title IX, but Title IX put a stop to it. Title IX is not the reason players are not paid, as the practice of not paying players predates Title IX by many decades.

Besides, if you don't think removing Title IX would result in paying players what they're worth, then why not repeal it anyway?
Click to expand...

That only makes sense if the purpose of Title IX was to avoid paying players.
 


RodentRampage said:
That makes no sense at all. Whether or not players should be paid has nothing to do with the salaries paid to professional athletes.

For your position to be correct, players would have to have been paid before Title IX, but Title IX put a stop to it. Title IX is not the reason players are not paid, as the practice of not paying players predates Title IX by many decades.

That only makes sense if the purpose of Title IX was to avoid paying players.
Click to expand...
Let's try again......prior to title IX, college athletes weren't worth much more than the cost of their scholarship. If Title IX had never existed, it stands to reason that as the athletes became more valuable, the payments made to players would have grown at the same rate that the coaching salaries grew.
 

AO54 said:
Let's try again......prior to title IX, college athletes weren't worth much more than the cost of their scholarship. If Title IX had never existed, it stands to reason that as the athletes became more valuable, the payments made to players would have grown at the same rate that the coaching salaries grew.
Click to expand...

Try all you want. No, it does not stand to reason that players would be paid if it were not for Title IX. That professional players were paid more as revenues increased doesn't imply that college athletes would be paid when revenues increased. The defining characteristic of a professional athlete is that they are paid. Whether they are paid more or less money, they are still professionals. A semi-pro athlete paid $50 and a multi-million dollar major league athlete are still professionals.

Collete athletes have always been defined as not being professional. Paying professional athletes more doesn't involve changing them from one status to another. Before Title IX, there would have been plenty of money to pay athletes at some of the top schools. How much money could Nebraska or Michigan have paid their players.

Furthermore, the claim that Title IX requires equal pay for all athletes is pretty weak. It doesn't address pay at all. Even if you shoehorned pay into it, there are multiple ways to achieve Title IX compliance. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420_pg3.html

The Three-Part Test

As discussed above, OCR uses the three-part test to determine whether an institution is providing nondiscriminatory athletic participation opportunities in compliance with the Title IX regulation. The test provides the following three compliance options:
1.Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or


2.Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or


3.Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.11

The three-part test is intended to allow institutions to maintain flexibility and control over their athletic programs consistent with Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirements. As stated in the 1996 Clarification, “[T]he three-part test furnishes an institution with three individual avenues to choose from when determining how it will provide individuals of each sex with nondiscriminatory opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. If an institution has met any part of the three-part test, OCR will determine that the institution is meeting this requirement.”

 

Rodent:

I was a non-professional college athlete at the D3 level. The gophers we watch on Saturday are paid more than $20k a year. They are most definitely professionals. Whether you get paid in crackers, scholarships or dollars, you're still being paid with real value equivalent to dollars. We just don't pay them what they're worth, and title IX prohibits schools or any other college league that might start from paying them what they're worth.

as to the question of the history of how we paid players before Title IX, i'd steer you here. http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/...-college-football-recruiting-cheating-part-4/ "A 1952 Time magazine article notes that one halfback was offered tuition, books, room, board, $300 per month spending money (equivalent to $2K/month now), and $5K upon graduation."
 

AO54 said:
I was a non-professional college athlete at the D3 level.
Click to expand...

In other words, you were an unpaid worker, doing the same work players at larger schools did, without any money.

Title IX prohibits schools or any other college league that might start from paying them what they're worth.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom