Former Gopher MarQueis Gray on college athletes: I just think they should be paid

Donate To GopherHole



Word said:
I wasn't talking about individual sports. I was talking about athletic departments as a whole. If the University is profiting, where does the money go?

I know the coaches make a lot of money (way too much in my opinion, but that's a conversation for later), but are the universities actually pulling a net profit?
Click to expand...

Impossible to really say, unless you have access to the entire accounting book for the whole university. They hide money here and there, make it look like this money goes this way, while this other money goes that other way.
 

MG had a choice to make. Play college football, have a great chance at earning his degree, leave school debt free.
Or
Graduate high school and see where his life and choices took him.

He chose the first choice. He made that choice. He certainly could have made the second choice. That choice would have been his as well.

Like many other posters on gopherhole, I I'm up to my eyeballs in student loan debt. But that was my choice. I made the choice to go to college, get an education, and now I have to pay my debts. I also made the choice to become a teacher with the knowledge that I was not going to make a large salary.

It comes down to choices and entitlement for me. I have had a job since I was 14 years old. The day I was old enough to start working, I did. I have had many jobs. I have also had jobs where I did not feel as though I was appreciated as much as I thought I should have been. Weather I wasn't being respected, or I thought I deserved a higher wage, I had another choice to make. I quit the ones that i felt were not meeting my needs and found new ones until I was content.

If student-athletes think they are not getting their needs met, they should quit whatever sport they are playing, take out student loans and pay their own way through school. Or they could quit school all together, of course. Because, it is their choice, after all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:


Gophers_4life said:
Depends. I could argue that it might actually lead to MN winning a national title in football again. How? Because it might be that the elite of the elite, top 15-20 or something college football programs, that are willing to pay whatever it takes, would break off from the rest of the P5. So MN could be more nationally competitive in the schools left behind.




That's not the issue, and it's not an answer to the actual issue.

The actual issue is that schools are making a lot of money on the two main revenue sports, and paying coaches and some admin a lot of money, while paying the players nothing. Allowing a few blue-chipper, lottery players to go directly pro out of high school doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Alright, give us your breakdown of how your system would work.

- is there an NCAA mandated salary cap or can institutions pay the going rate?
- does each player earn an equal salary or are these negotiable based on value to the team?
- any employment law issues?
- unionization issues?
- Title IX issues?
- free agency or long term contracts?
- guaranteed contracts? Any foreseeable costs to that?
- eligibility terms? Does the NCAA fold in favor of existing labor regulatory structures? Can players stay for 6,7,8+ years if the NCAA goes away? If so what if the SEC decides on looser eligibility rules than the Big Ten?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Alright, give us your breakdown of how your system would work.
Click to expand...
I can try, but most of my answers likely won't be very satisfying to you, is my guess. I can only reason about things very generally.

Pompous Elitist said:
- is there an NCAA mandated salary cap or can institutions pay the going rate?
Click to expand...

I see these as being an items negotiated between "owners" (schools) and the player's union, which I think is an absolute must if paying players becomes reality.

A cap, whether you meant that in total for the team (like the NFL cap) or if you meant it like no player can earn more than X, would help with parity, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I would even love to see a draft. Helping to spread five and four star players out among the P5 teams in the system.

Pompous Elitist said:
- does each player earn an equal salary or are these negotiable based on value to the team?
Click to expand...

Another thing that probably has to be negotiated with the union. Me personally, I don't have a problem with some earning more than others.

This is the standard now, in NCAA sports that allow partial scholarships (like FCS football).

Pompous Elitist said:
- any employment law issues?
Click to expand...

Maybe? What are you thinking? What I can say, is that I'm pretty sure all of these schools hire students as student-workers, now. So whatever laws there are, must allow that?

Pompous Elitist said:
- unionization issues?
Click to expand...

Again maybe? But also again, I don't think the NFL players union has any problems across the states with teams?

Pompous Elitist said:
- Title IX issues?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it should not be. Title IX was designed specifically to increase the number of opportunities for females to participate. It has succeeded in that. I don't think paying P5 football players and high-major men's basketball players dilutes that.

Pompous Elitist said:
- free agency or long term contracts?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, players should be allowed to transfer after the season, but I would not agree with playing for two different schools in the same season. Though to be honest, when the season spans across a clear break in the traditional school schedule .... like for example, first half of basketball is in the fall semester, and the second half is in the spring semester .... you could well see people advocating for a player to be able to switch schools across that break?

Pompous Elitist said:
- guaranteed contracts? Any foreseeable costs to that?
Click to expand...

I don't see why a contract couldn't be signed for multiple seasons? I'm not sure.

Pompous Elitist said:
- eligibility terms? Does the NCAA fold in favor of existing labor regulatory structures? Can players stay for 6,7,8+ years if the NCAA goes away? If so what if the SEC decides on looser eligibility rules than the Big Ten?
Click to expand...

This is getting really far out there, in the idea of just straight up employing players, like a school might employ a janitor. No class, no academics, just a straight employee.

It might be up to each conference then, to do business as it sees best fit. Just like the NFL and the AAF both play football, but each does it a bit differently.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You really think football and basketball are breaking even?

https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/bi...-reaches-an-insane-51-million-per-school.html
Click to expand...

That article doesn't say what state the athletic programs are in. Revenue sports at most schools keep the non-revenue alive. Are we going to use that money to pay the players and not have non-revenue sports? Also how do we pay football players and basketball players, but not pay female athletes? Only a very small fraction of any women's programs make any money.

I am hearing a lot of pay the player, but not a lot of specifics. If you believe Mark Coyle, the U paid for it's athletic budget with revenue, but not by a lot. So have to think we are going to need to cut back costs somewhere in the budget to pay the revenue athletes enough to make any significant difference. Also about 15% of that budget was by donation. Will people donate to professional sports? Do people donate to the Twins or Vikings?

I am open to talk about whether players should be paid, but it might be important to see how many schools, ours included can pay all the revenue athletes.
 
Last edited:

WoodburyTim said:
That article doesn't say what state the athletic programs are in. Revenue sports at most schools keep the non-revenue alive. Are we going to use that money to pay the players and not have non-revenue sports? Also how do we pay football players and basketball players, but not pay female athletes? Only a very small fraction of any women's programs make any money.

I am hearing a lot of pay the player, but not a lot of specifics. If you believe Mark Coyle, the U paid for it's athletic budget with revenue, but not by a lot. So have to think we are going to need to cut back costs somewhere in the budget to pay the revenue athletes enough to make any significant difference. Also about 15% of that budget was by donation. Will people donate to professional sports? Do people donate to the Twins or Vikings?

I am open to talk about whether players should be paid, but it might be important to see how many schools, ours included can pay all the revenue athletes.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with club teams! And club teams also count as opportunities for females to participate.
 



Some guy said:
Yup.

For 80-90% of athletes they are worth less in revenue to the university than the scholarship they are given.

Probably even less than that
Click to expand...

Well true or not, you are going to need "worthless" players to fill out rosters. This elevates the "worthless" players value. For clarity, I really am not sure how to feel about paying players. It is a complex issue.
 

What I got from Marqueis's tweets was that it seemed like, at the time, being an athlete on scholarship had some unintended causes. I think the best way to compare would be to look at the expenses/life of an everyday student and see what is entirely covered by the scholarship. If you can make a cases that being a student athlete is causing some sort measurable loss in opportunity to make money or something like that, then you might have a stronger argument.

There then becomes the issue of putting your body on the line for the university, which is a murky issue and I'm not sure which way I fall.

I will say one thing, if at some point in the future college was paid for by the government in part or full (just hypothetical, not looking to open a debate on that), you'd have way more ground to stand on about the lost value of being a student athlete. Say tuition and dorms/meal plans were covered by the government, a freshmen could get a part time job and use the money however they like, while a freshman athletes commitments might not allow them to get a part time job, leading to lost value for the athlete.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Nothing wrong with club teams! And club teams also count as opportunities for females to participate.
Click to expand...

Does it? I don't think for the purposes of Title IX that club teams count as equal access. I think scholarships have to even out and it is an open issue if payments to players would also have to be made even. Just a reading of Title IX points to the payments we are talking about would be considered a benefit of participation, the same as a scholarship. The only way not to be subject to Title IX would be to completely disassociate with the University and then all this is a moot point as it wouldn't be college athletics anymore.
 

WoodburyTim said:
Does it? I don't think for the purposes of Title IX that club teams count as equal access. I think scholarships have to even out and it is an open issue if payments to players would also have to be made even. Just a reading of Title IX points to the payments we are talking about would be considered a benefit of participation, the same as a scholarship. The only way not to be subject to Title IX would be to completely disassociate with the University and then all this is a moot point as it wouldn't be college athletics anymore.
Click to expand...

That would be the most extreme ... but at the end of the day, would we really care? None of care or know how well Faalele, or Morgan, or Barber are doing in class. None of us cheer when they get an A on a test. We do want them to have a degree, sure, but none of us knows offhand what their majors are or how many credits they’ve passed.

We want to see high quality athletes, dressed up in Maroon and Gold with the word “Minnesota” on the front, beating some other squad dressed up in white and red that says “Wisconsin”.

Will we even know or care that they’re not even enrolled at the schools?
 



Gophers_4life said:
That would be the most extreme ... but at the end of the day, would we really care? None of care or know how well Faalele, or Morgan, or Barber are doing in class. None of us cheer when they get an A on a test. We do want them to have a degree, sure, but none of us knows offhand what their majors are or how many credits they’ve passed.

We want to see high quality athletes, dressed up in Maroon and Gold with the word “Minnesota” on the front, beating some other squad dressed up in white and red that says “Wisconsin”.

Will we even know or care that they’re not even enrolled at the schools?
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I have known several Gopher football players and I played DII myself. I didn't know any Gopher stars or that had much of a chance of playing professionally and they used football as access to a good education. One even got half through his Masters in his last year just playing special teams. By no means are these the flashy examples or the guys talked about on ESPN, but they make up a far greater percentage of the players. At least for the guys, I know their educations have served them far better than a few years of minor league football would have.
 

GuyFawkes said:
It's like saying Lebron gets paid too much, I'd take his spot for 50k, problem is, no one is interested in watching someone who can't dunk and gets winded after running(walking) up the court a couple of times. Not taking a side on if they should get paid or not, but college sports needs future pro's aspect to continue it's popularity, otherwise you only get people watching their own teams, what reason would anyone watch blueblood outside of their fans if they don't have future pros on their team. I watch a lot of high school basketball but I only watch it to check out future college recruits, not because I care about said schools, that would be same case at college level.
Click to expand...

I don’t watch because they go pro, that’s crazy. I watch because they wear the university colors and win. After college, who cares.
 

BleedGopher said:
Former Gopher Kendal Shell chimes in:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

I hope he's not insinuating what I think he's insinuating. If he is please know that 99.9% of the people that are watching don't care what color you are, they love that you're a Gopher! Aren't we all a mishmash of something?
 

Nothing in Title IX would explicitly require equal pay. It's neither scholarship nor per diem if they phrase it correctly. The only way to justify it is to pay athletes from the profitable sports their share of the revenue. Or you raise the prices by 10% on all sports with those going to that sport's players. But then does the QB get paid more than the long snapper or third string LB?


Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;
Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and
Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.
Click to expand...
 

rowdaboat said:
Nothing in Title IX would explicitly require equal pay. It's neither scholarship nor per diem if they phrase it correctly. The only way to justify it is to pay athletes from the profitable sports their share of the revenue. Or you raise the prices by 10% on all sports with those going to that sport's players. But then does the QB get paid more than the long snapper or third string LB?
Click to expand...

I think you’re kidding yourself if you think there wouldn’t be Title IX legal issues, and broadly beyond that we live in the age of $15 minimum wage and going further a baseline living wage proposal for every person. It doesn’t matter that the players or football program bring in most of the dollars or have the most economic value. That is irrelevant to pay or salary - arguments are made in terms of fairness and social justice.

Economic value of a program cannot be used to discriminate under Title IX.

If athletes successfully reclassify themselves as employees you can do the math on the salary and benefit burden the department will find itself in.

Sorry, I find it it hard to believe the schools can simply start issuing 80k stipends to football and basketball players or allow marketing deals and everything will carry on peacefully. Maybe I’m wrong but I foresee titanic changes if this ever comes to pass. As I’ve said before the schools should stay true to their mission and set a strict staff salary cap, adjusted for location, and the other proceeds can go towards facilities or scholarship for deserving students. It’s hard eg to stomach a tool like Coyle earning a million a year.
 

The players deserve to sign shoe deals if they can, make money whenever their likeness is used, signing autographs or anything related to that.

I don't think boosters should just be able to just give them money but it's BS that the NCAA doesn't give any compensation to the players whom they are using their likeness.

Look at that UNC Duke game. The cheapest were like $2,800 and the largest reason for that was Zion.
 

Former Goofer said:
The players deserve to sign shoe deals if they can, make money whenever their likeness is used, signing autographs or anything related to that.

I don't think boosters should just be able to just give them money but it's BS that the NCAA doesn't give any compensation to the players whom they are using their likeness.

Look at that UNC Duke game. The cheapest were like $2,800 and the largest reason for that was Zion.
Click to expand...

They can, as soon as they move on from the academic institution and the NCAA structure. And round and round we go.
 

Former Goofer said:
The players deserve to sign shoe deals if they can, make money whenever their likeness is used, signing autographs or anything related to that.

I don't think boosters should just be able to just give them money but it's BS that the NCAA doesn't give any compensation to the players whom they are using their likeness.

Look at that UNC Duke game. The cheapest were like $2,800 and the largest reason for that was Zion.
Click to expand...
Problem is an Alabama booster would pay $1,000,000 for an autograph. This would only make the rich get richer.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 

Former Goofer said:
The players deserve to sign shoe deals if they can, make money whenever their likeness is used, signing autographs or anything related to that.

I don't think boosters should just be able to just give them money but it's BS that the NCAA doesn't give any compensation to the players whom they are using their likeness.

Look at that UNC Duke game. The cheapest were like $2,800 and the largest reason for that was Zion.
Click to expand...

The only reason for the ticket prices was Zion?
How much were tickets last year for Duke UNC in cameron?
How much were duke vs Boston college tickets (their previous weekday home game)?


I want to congratulate you on buying into the ESPN hype machine
 

WoodburyTim said:
I see your point, but I have known several Gopher football players and I played DII myself. I didn't know any Gopher stars or that had much of a chance of playing professionally and they used football as access to a good education. One even got half through his Masters in his last year just playing special teams. By no means are these the flashy examples or the guys talked about on ESPN, but they make up a far greater percentage of the players. At least for the guys, I know their educations have served them far better than a few years of minor league football would have.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is an absolutely awesome side effect of the system we have. I will never argue against players getting degrees out of the deal.

The counter-point is no different than the counter-point of why a player might choose to go pro right out of high school: nothing will prevent him from going to get a degree, after his pro career is done.

Similarly, if college football at the top level, which may or may not include Minnesota, gets to the point where teams are actually just private clubs that have a "in name only" affiliation with a school, then those players are more than welcome to pursue a degree after they've finished playing.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I think you’re kidding yourself if you think there wouldn’t be Title IX legal issues, and broadly beyond that we live in the age of $15 minimum wage and going further a baseline living wage proposal for every person. It doesn’t matter that the players or football program bring in most of the dollars or have the most economic value. That is irrelevant to pay or salary - arguments are made in terms of fairness and social justice.
Click to expand...

Then move them to club sports. You can't argue that it's unfair that a club woman's volleyball player doesn't get paid, while a varsity male football player does. Otherwise, you'd have to argue that a female violinist in the school orchestra must be paid. Etc. Etc. Argument doesn't work, because it's arbitrary.

Pompous Elitist said:
Economic value of a program cannot be used to discriminate under Title IX.
Click to expand...

The basis of Title IX was participation. You would lose in court. No language in the law comes close to giving you a leg to stand on. If they want to make a new law, then go for it

Pompous Elitist said:
If athletes successfully reclassify themselves as employees you can do the math on the salary and benefit burden the department will find itself in.

Sorry, I find it it hard to believe the schools can simply start issuing 80k stipends to football and basketball players or allow marketing deals and everything will carry on peacefully. Maybe I’m wrong but I foresee titanic changes if this ever comes to pass. As I’ve said before the schools should stay true to their mission and set a strict staff salary cap, adjusted for location, and the other proceeds can go towards facilities or scholarship for deserving students. It’s hard eg to stomach a tool like Coyle earning a million a year.
Click to expand...

What you're referring to is essentially a DIII model. Jim Delany has threatened to take the Big Ten down to DIII if player pay comes to pass. I think that was an empty threat, but we will see. You may end up being exactly correct.
 


Word said:
Problem is an Alabama booster would pay $1,000,000 for an autograph. This would only make the rich get richer.
Click to expand...

What's to stop me from offering to pay 10 NFL All-pro's each $20M a year, out of my own pocket, if they'll play on the Vikings, and the Vikings don't have to sign them for any more than the league minimum??

How do the NFL's rules handle that? Why isn't that a big issue now?
 


Gophers_4life said:
What's to stop me from offering to pay 10 NFL All-pro's each $20M a year, out of my own pocket, if they'll play on the Vikings, and the Vikings don't have to sign them for any more than the league minimum??

How do the NFL's rules handle that? Why isn't that a big issue now?
Click to expand...
First, I highly doubtful you have $200 million. So that would stop you. The rest of your argument doesn't make any sense related to amateur college athletics.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 


Word said:
The rest of your argument doesn't make any sense related to amateur college athletics.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense for paying college football players, though.

Guessing you don't have an answer for that one, or you would've said it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom