U Regent writes Deadspin Op-ed: Here's A Fair Way To Pay College Athletes

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,579
Reaction score
15,659
Points
113
per Hsu in Deadspin:

One of the NCAA’s major arguments against allowing college athletes to be paid is that it would create an uneven playing field. Alabama would be able to devote more money to players than Boise State, which in turn could outspend Akron, and so on. The best talent would flow to the highest bidders. A handful of schools would dominate. If this sounds familiar, it’s because this is how college sports already works—the richest programs consistently attract the top high school recruits and win more games. Amateurism doesn’t foster parity; it simply diverts money away from athletes and toward coaches, administrators, and luxury facilities.

Wherever you stand on this debate, one thing is inarguable: under current NCAA compensation rules, some athletes are getting a much better deal than others. How so? Well, schools are permitted to pay athletes with grant-in-aid scholarships, which are good for tuition and fees, room, board, and books, as well as small cost-of-attendance stipends. College athletes are compensated, as amateurism proponents like to point out, in the form of the full cost of attendance for their respective schools. But the total yearly value of those packages varies wildly from school to school.

That’s not fair. And it needs to change.

Take Minnesota, where I’m a regent. At my school, a full ride for an out-of-state athlete in 2017–18 was worth $37,455 per year. By contrast, a full ride at the most expensive school in the Big Ten, Northwestern, was worth $70,385.

For an out-of-state Minnesota athlete, that’s a difference of $32,930. For an in-state athlete, whose full ride has a lower listed value, it’s an even larger $45,116. That’s not fair for anyone—not for the athletes receiving less, and not for the schools forbidden from making up the difference.

As such, I believe that if the NCAA wants to continue mandating amateurism while asserting that competitive equity is at stake, then it should allow the total compensation received by athletes at any school within a conference to be equal to the highest-value full ride within the same conference. Better still, the NCAA could permit total allowable compensation for every athlete in the nation to equal that of whichever school is the most expensive in a given year. (Northwestern’s full ride was the most expensive among all Division I schools in 2017-2018.) Either way, it sets a benchmark that reflects the current economic realities of college and short-circuits both the overt bidding wars that the NCAA professes to fear and the secret ones that it pretends not to know about.

I’ve traveled with Minnesota’s football team and experienced their rigid, rigorous schedule firsthand. I’ve learned about the athletes during this time: where they come from, their families, and the sacrifices they make to play their sport. They put in athletic workweeks that easily go beyond 40 hours during the season; they put their bodies and brains at risk and assume any and all long-term health costs for the injuries they sustain; they too often compromise getting the very best education they can because of their obligation to their teams. And they do all of this for our enjoyment—and, incidentally, to further a college sports entertainment industry that generates billions of dollars in revenue. That money makes everyone from athletic directors to strength coaches rich, but somehow always runs out before getting to the players that make it all happen.

They’re owed more than that. In an ideal world, we wouldn’t limit college athlete compensation at all. But in my experience, change within higher education is both hard and slow—the status quo tends to rule the day, at least until lawsuits or lawmakers intervene. Until then, though, change will have to come within the preexisting structure of NCAA amateurism. Equalizing the full value of school attendance is a good place to start.

https://deadspin.com/heres-a-fair-way-to-pay-college-athletes-for-their-labo-1830703869

Go Gophers!!
 

Northwestern will not like that idea
 

If this plan went into effect, A Northwestern scholarship student would pocket $0 extra cash. Where a Minnesota Recruit from Minnesota would get $45,000 in pocket change! Duke recruits would most likely get less than a grand.

Where would Tre be playing this year if this was the case? Scholarship athletes would get the best possible reward for sticking with their hometown state and maximizing their income.

This would put a fence around states pushing players to their own D1 schools. Hell, reciprocity agreements would probably be revoked to keep players in the state! Minnesota would be set up big time being the only D1 in the state. Michigan and MSU would struggle to get players, Indiana and Purdue would have trouble and Nebraska would be stuck with their instate basketball pool!

This would kill Duke and all the private schools. Let's do it.
 
Last edited:

It's a little embarrassing that this came from a U of M regent.

All it does is make things harder on private schools. Pretty sure that a majority of the schools that dominate in football/basketball are public. I don't think this would accomplish much, and I don't see how it makes things more fair.
 

It's a little embarrassing that this came from a U of M regent.

All it does is make things harder on private schools. Pretty sure that a majority of the schools that dominate in football/basketball are public. I don't think this would accomplish much, and I don't see how it makes things more fair.

Bingo. Good post Bizzle.
 


It's not a little embarrassing that it came from a U of M regent, it's extremely embarrassing. He seems to forget public school tuition is less than private because they get funding from the State.

Besides, the value of a degree is not simply the cost of tuition/room & board, etc. In order to understand the full value you need to take into account what you're receiving. Is a degree from NW worth more than from the U of M?
 


Calling this post 'embarrassing' is not accurate. I think its a thought provoking concept that I had never heard before. It's got its flaws, but get off your high horse or throw out your best suggestion.

Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk
 




Calling this post 'embarrassing' is not accurate. I think its a thought provoking concept that I had never heard before. It's got its flaws, but get off your high horse or throw out your best suggestion.

Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk

I think there are two choices: 1. Continue the no pay route or 2. Set the pay at stipend level - same for all schools. If you can't afford it, you have to recruit kids that can live without it. It is no different than the way it is for schools in conferences today that don't have good TV contracts. Let kids go pro or D league if they want the money. The money thing has gotten too crazy already.
 

Maybe if they didn't waste their money on tattoos and jewelry they wouldn't be poor college athletes. Until then I will be against paying them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Maybe if they didn't waste their money on tattoos and jewelry they wouldn't be poor college athletes. Until then I will be against paying them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There would, of course, need to be guidelines specifying precisely how an athlete could spend his/her cash allotments. Do you suppose expenditures for condoms would be apropos :confused:
 

There would, of course, need to be guidelines specifying precisely how an athlete could spend his/her cash allotments. Do you suppose expenditures for condoms would be apropos :confused:

Are you seriously trying to compare tats and diamond earrings with condoms?. I think there is a slight difference. I doubt any of them spend several hundred or more on condoms at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Are you seriously trying to compare tats and diamond earrings with condoms?. I think there is a slight difference. I doubt any of them spend several hundred or more on condoms at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, what about shoes then:confused:
 

I guess Northwestern's been killing it in recruiting given their scholarship is worth more...


Side Note: Some idiots in here other than the author...
 


You can probably get free condoms from the U's health clinic or certainly from the athletic trainers.

This is most likely included in the evaluation.
 




Yes well i feel the same about those as I do about players getting tats and diamond earrings so you're kind of making my point for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Yes well i feel the same about those as I do about players getting tats and diamond earrings so you're kind of making my point for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great! That’s precisely what I was attempting to do. But, not to belabor the point, the cost of condoms can add up too particularly when buying the designer brands.
 




Top Bottom