Should college players get paid and if so how much?

[NUdiehard]

The question of whether college athletes should be paid is certainly not new, but it has resurfaced in a significant way due to the recent leaks of FBI investigations and wiretaps, etc.  Based on the responses in twitterverse, this issue seems to be almost as divisive and polarizing as many of the significant political and social issues of our day.  But as with most such discussion in the social media realm, it seems to be couched in absolutes with little room for discussion or nuance.  This post is an attempt to bring legitimate thought and debate to this issue--hopefully without hostility and condescension.  

 

First, I will buck the usual format and state my current (personal) position/conclusion before getting into the basis/reasons for that conclusion.  The reason is because I anticipate some hostility from the "players are being exploited and should be paid" crowd.  I am not against players being paid in the absolute, even though many of my thoughts  may seem that way.  In fact, I would completely support a "cash stipend" being paid to college athletes (much like they have already started in football), but with this said, my feeling is that it should be a universal stipend that is binding on all schools and is the same for all players in that sport.  For instance, all div. 1 college basketball players could be paid a stipend of $10,000 per year (the number could be debated and I am open to more or less, as long as it is within that range; but I don't believe it should or could be a whole lot (ie, $100,000 or $1,000,000 ).  This would be in addition to their scholarship, training table access, athletic hear, travel, and all the other perks they receive.  

 

Now onto the basis for that position.  There are some common themes that are often cited in this debate, but the question is "are they really true".  Those in support of paying players often argue that the players are being exploited and it is unfair.  There may be some truth to this, but the question is to what extent.  The "pay the players" supporters frequently make the blanket argument that "it is the athletes that are generating all this money and therefore they should get their fair share of the money."  They also argue that the "college athlete" is a sham and we need to just accept that college is now the minor leagues of professional sports and therefore college players should be paid accordingly.  The pay-the-players supporters see the huge contracts being signed by NBA players (including the infamous one-and-dones) and conclude that since those athletes are worth millions in the NBA that each college team's star players must be worth a similar amount for their one or two years in college.  But is this really correct? 

 

When valuing talented players, it seem to me that most people just look at all the money being earned by the schools and the "NCAA" and simply conclude it must be due to the players.  But they fail to properly account for the value of the "brand".  Is it the players that are worth so much and draw all those eyeballs to arenas and TVs?  Or is it really the brand?  By the brand, I mean the school/team in college and the team/organization in the NBA.  For reasons I will explain, it seems to me the true value is much more a result of the brand than the individual players.  

 

Let's take our own favorite school good ol' Nebraska as a prime example.  Nebraska has virtually sold out its 15,000 + seat arena every year for the past 5 years.  Nebraska fans also watch the games on TV and support their program and cheer on their favorite players.  Yet, in those past 5 years, how many NBA quality players has Nebraska had?  Answer:  None (at least to this point).  So, if players were to be paid their "intrinsic worth", how much would the players on Nebraska have been paid in 2012/13?  2013/14?  2014/15?  and so forth?  Excluding this year, the best player at NU in the past 6 years was Terran Petteway.  So should he have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I mean, he 'packed the vault" right?  So wasn't he largely the reason for bringing in all that revenue . . . or was he?  As we all know, Terran left early for his shot at the NBA, and after a year in the D-League (in which he probably "earned" about $45,000 (which just happens to be very similar to what a full-ride scholarship with all the perks, training table, etc. is probably worth at NU).  And what is the D-league anyway?  It is a developmental league for the NBA.  I have not researched it, but I highly doubt the D-league self-generates enough money to pay its players even those rather meager salaries--it is subsidized by the NBA (which has an established "brand" to generate value.  When Terran as at NU, 15,000+ would pack the house to watch him play.  How many people went to watch him play on his D-league team?  Based on my (admittedly very quick google search) research, D-league games average a couple thousand fans per game.  But wait!  Wouldn't we all agree that even the worst D-League team has FAR more talent than any team Nebraska or even almost any other college team ever has.  The D-League is full of players like Terran who were "the show" on their college team, but not quite at NBA talent.  I highly doubt there is a college team today that could beat even the worst D-League team.  Yet the college teams are generating 15,000+ attendance while the D-league teams are generating a couple thousand.  And this doesn't even factor in TV, radio, etc.  Has anyone on this board ever watched an entire D-League game?  Can you even name 3 teams in the D-league (and as a note I know it is now called the G-League but we all know it as D-League so Gatorade will just have to deal with it).  

 

Let's look at this another way.  If elite players who have just graduated from high school are really so intrinsically valuable and are being exploited, then why doesn't someone (how about champion of the cause Jay Bilas) simply form a new league called the "We're not going to take being exploited any more" league and then get all these intrinsically valuable high school graduates (who don't yet qualify for NBA) and make millions and millions of dollars off of their intrinsic value that has for too long been exploited.  Wouldn't this be the American Way.  In fact, Lavar Ball actually suggested he was going to do this very thing.  But the reality is he hasn't and he never will. And neither will anyone else IMO.  Why?  Because it would fail miserably and lose money and be bankrupt within 2 years.  Why?  Because "fans" don't pay real money for season tickets or game tickets, etc, to see the latest high school kid who they have never heard of but are told he can really dunk well but happens to play on a team they have never heard of in a league they have never heard of.  Why?  because the fans have no affiliation with that "brand" . The reality is that the fans are loyal to the brand, not the high school recruits.  I am a Nebraska fan first and foremost, not a Terran Petteway fan, or David Rivers fan.  Do I become a fan of the player once they play here?  Absolutely.  But that is only because they came to play for my "team"  The team, the program, the brand is always first and foremost.  This is why I am a huge fan of Ed Morrow when he steps on the PBA court with a Husker jersey on.  But as soon as he switches that jersey and goes to Marquette, I don't follow him, cheer him, or really think about him anymore.  Who do I cheer for?  Whoever is wearing the Scarlet and Cream.  Heck, I have cheered more for Mike Peltz than I ever have for Jahlil Okafor, Lonzo Ball, or any other high draft pick who played on another team.  And certainly more than a D-league player on a team I have never heard of.  

 

One more thought.  Most of the pay-for-pay supporters use high NBA draft picks and one-and-done type players to argue their point.  Yet there are over 350 Div 1 college basketball teams at 13 players per team equals over 4,500 Div 1 college basketball players.  And yet people are basing their arguments on a very, very small and select few of those players.  Now I will explain why even those elite players do not significantly bring value to the brand.  Let's say Lavar Ball did form his "exploited players" league and the top 30 high school recruits all went and played in this league (and I don't know the exact number but I am quite confident that on average there are less than 30 one-and-dones draft into the NBA each year).  If this happened, according to the pay-the-players supporters, this should significantly reduce the value of college basketball programs and the NCAA.  But would it?  I don't think it would have much effect at all, if any.  In fact, it might even increase the value. Why?  Because it would bring more parity to all the teams.  As mentioned, NU has not had a single NBA player in almost 20 years.  Yet Husker fans keep coming and coming and coming.  College basketball fans don't need NBA caliber talent to enjoy and support and pay to watch their team.  Why?  Because we support the brand not the players.  If a new league sucked up all the one-and-dones, it would simply mean that all schools would be similar to Nebraska and have to find ways to recruit the "not quite NBA" talented players, coach them up, and compete.  Plus, it might actually result in they players staying in school longer, which builds up even more brand/team/player loyalty.  The value is in the brand and the fan loyalty to the brand, not the individual elite players.  

 

One more thought.  Some people say "why not just let the players sell their "likeness" or identity like pro players can.  I can see why people would think this way from a players stand point.  But IMO, this could be winning the battle but losing the war.  I believe this type of approach might be the one thing that could kill the brand loyalty that has been built up for so many years.  We all know what would happen, right?  Those schools that have huge big dollar donors would get all the best players.  Why?  Because those donors would pay the best prospects huge money for "advertising" or "marketing" or whatever just to get those players to come to "their" school.  It is already bad now, but this would end any semblance of parity. The same 10 teams with the big booster would get the best every year and win every year. Coaches wouldn't even have to recruit.  Just send an email saying how much T-Boone will pay and it will be a done deal within minutes.  Nothing to do with the school, or coach, or academics, or teammates, etc.  Just a paycheck.  There would be no way the lesser schools without those big donors could complete, and eventually the impending doom of futiliy would catch up with even the most ardent fans and they would just give up.  This would result in 340 of the 350 teams having little or no hope and therefore no support and no fans and ultimately the end of college basketball altogether.

 

Well, I may have set a record for longest post ever so I will stop.  But I am open to thoughts, counter-arguments, etc.  And mods, please don't move this to another forum.  I think it relates to Husker Hoops as much as many topics and it is a issue of interest to almost all Husker Hoops fans I am sure.  

Edited March 9, 2018 by NUdiehard

[hskr4life]

Kind of.  I think they should get something.

 

I think an equal stipend per semester for every athlete.  The amount should be the same across all athletes no matter the sport.  It should be the same as anyone getting a stipend for working/doing research for the university.  Athletes don't have time for a part time job.  They should get a little stipend for their work.  Kind of like part time employees.

[jdw]

They should be paid whatever someone is willing to give them.

[hskr4life]

Just now, jdw said:

They should be paid whatever someone is willing to give them.

 

This is what we don't want to happen.  This is exactly what we do not need.  This is COLLEGE athletics.  NOT PROFESSIONAL athletics.

[cipsucks]

They are getting paid. Tuition, meals, apparel, paid trips all over the country, including Hawaii, free health care, unlimited access to training facilities, school tutors and all the other crap I can't come up with at this moment.

 

Brevity is the soul of wit....

[jdw]

1 minute ago, hskr4life said:

 

This is what we don't want to happen.  This is exactly what we do not need.  This is COLLEGE athletics.  NOT PROFESSIONAL athletics.

It is nothing personal but anyone who thinks they should be able to legislate someone's earning power I vehemently disagree with.

[nustudent]

No.

 

Increase the stipend or amend the scholarship to account for cost of living but they shouldn't get paid.  

[NUdiehard]

1 minute ago, jdw said:

It is nothing personal but anyone who thinks they should be able to legislate someone's earning power I vehemently disagree with.

Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.

[hskr4life]

Just now, jdw said:

It is nothing personal but anyone who thinks they should be able to legislate someone's earning power I vehemently disagree with.

 

And I get that.  That's what professional athletics are for.  I can't dictate what my company pays me... to an extent.  I can leave though if I do not agree with it.  I don't have to stay.  They don't have to play for the NCAA.  They can leave if they want to.  If the NCAA says no pay, they get a stipend, etc, then so be it.  But the NCAA is their employer and therefore they can dictate what their earning potential.  Just like any other company.  Doesn't matter if you agree with their decision or not.  You don't have to work there if you don't like what you are getting paid.

[hskr4life]

Just now, NUdiehard said:

Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.

 

You beat me by like 10 seconds!

[Dean Smith]

2 minutes ago, jdw said:

It is nothing personal but anyone who thinks they should be able to legislate someone's earning power I vehemently disagree with.

Well since these are student-athletes and not professional athletes they don’t have any legal earning power. Right now they receive benefits such as free college, traing table, and so forth. I’m not taking a side on this but if they were to receive a stipend that would be another benefit and not a salary so you vehementness is misplaced. 

[jdw]

2 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.

I can see this argument I just disagree , any way I am done with this topic. I come here for enjoyment and to bash anyone who speaks I'll of Nebraska.

[hskr4life]

8 minutes ago, jdw said:

I can see this argument I just disagree , any way I am done with this topic. I come here for enjoyment and to bash anyone who speaks I'll of Nebraska.

 

I know a certain twitter account that you can check out....

 

[jdw]

6 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

I know a certain twitter account that you can check out....

 

Would it be someone who looks like Eddie Munster with a toupee.

[hskr4life]

8 minutes ago, jdw said:

Would it be someone who looks like Eddie Munster with a toupee.

 

That's a diss to Eddie Munster......

[Shawn Eichorst's Toupee]

If it came out tomorrow that Nebraska had been paying every player on the roster cash under the table, would you stop watching or supporting Husker Hoops?

[aphilso1]

39 minutes ago, jdw said:

It is nothing personal but anyone who thinks they should be able to legislate someone's earning power I vehemently disagree with.

 

Cool.  Then start your own league and pay players.  You can try and recruit the best players straight out of high school and compete against the NCAA for viewership.  

[nustudent]

5 minutes ago, Shawn Eichorst's Toupee said:

If it came out tomorrow that Nebraska had been paying every player on the roster cash under the table, would you stop watching or supporting Husker Hoops?

 

Probably.   But not because we are paying.   Because we've been so bad the last few years (outside of this year) while we were cheating

[aphilso1]

45 minutes ago, NUdiehard said:

Nobody is legislating anyone’s earning power. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you think they have more value then you should start a new league and sign them and make millions.

 

Dang it, I should've read the rest of the thread before responding to him.  Basically said the same thing as you.

[aphilso1]

41 minutes ago, jdw said:

I can see this argument I just disagree , any way I am done with this topic. I come here for enjoyment and to bash anyone who speaks I'll of Nebraska.

 

Take a couple econ classes and you won't disagree anymore.

[jdw]

2 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Take a couple econ classes and you won't disagree anymore.

So anyone who disagrees with you has never taken an econ class and is uneducated cool story.

[jdw]

I will not be sucked into this topic so you can reply anyway you want and feel like your opinion is fact.

[aphilso1]

Just now, jdw said:

So anyone who disagrees with you has never taken an econ class and is uneducated cool story.

 

No, not for disagreeing with me.   For demonstrating a complete inability to understand what free market means.  We already had this discussion a couple weeks ago.  And for the record, I was an econ and finance double major.

 

[HuskerFever]

15 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

Cool.  Then start your own league and pay players.  You can try and recruit the best players straight out of high school and compete against the NCAA for viewership.  

 

There's right ways to do it...and then there's Big Baller Brand ways to do it 

 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/2/2/16964568/lavar-ball-pro-league-recruits-kentucky-syracuse-turned-down

[tcp]

ruh roh. this can't end well.