but its not the equivalent and I've argued this before. what the ncaa should do is make it like an internship. the athletes could be sponsored by teams in the professional leagues, they could go work out with those teams in the offseason, and they could be paid by those teams. that would be like an internship. what the ncaa should do just like the individual schools in the universities do is allow athletes to join a team, however method, draft etc., continue to play in college and have that kid sponsored by a team. if the team feels the kid is ready, they can ask them to join any time, still allowing the kids who want to graduate to continue their education if they want. if the kid doesn't pan out then the relationship with university and pro team ends at the end of eligibility.
Plenty of regular students do internships for free or low pay. They are getting coaching that increases their value and educations that they would have never gotten. You can say a UT education is only worth whatever tuition is now, but it's worth a lot more when you could have never gotten it if you weren't an athlete.
Who does this benefit, though, except for the very top tier of football and basketball players? It hurts the schools because it creates a massive headache to manage, and the pro team's goals are not going to mesh with the college team's goals (protecting a player from injury, for example). It hurts the NFL because now they have to start scouting all these random high school kids, where the pool of talent is hundreds of times the size of the NCAA level. It hurts all the non-draftee type players (the vast majority of college football players) who are now treated like 2nd tier players as the big boys get special perks through their connections with the pro team. It takes away from the quality of college football which is, arguably, the most successful sport out there because it makes it all about the money for a portion of the kids as opposed to the team concept which it seems to embody so well (far better, for example, than basketball). You're going through a hell of a lot of work to benefit a very small minority of kids who are going to get multi-million dollar paydays in the long run anyway.
and the coaches make millions, and so does the ncaa and the university. we could go round and round. an internship for regular students doesn't provide the value that football does to a university.
Tons of schools lose money overall on athletics though.. so it would make the differences between what schools are good on football even greater.. Vince's value has increased by a lot more than Mack Brown's salary while at UT
you keep making this argument about what the will make in the future. a) that is not a given, and b) it doesn't matter anyway because what they make in the future is for the service they provide to the nfl, not the ncaa. again, they could get exposure anywhere, the ncaa jusst has the monopoly on exposure, and that's the crux of the issue. why would it take away from the quality, the whole point is for the kids to stay in school and not have a basketball situation where teams are almost forced to draft kids they know won't be ready for three years. as far as an organizational nightmare, the ncaa is already a huge organization, with numerous rules, that are enforced by numberous investigators. they manage numerous athletes already. they have a large orgination in place already, I'm sure they handle it.
and those universities can't compete anyway, so that doesn't matter. and besides, that's why the teams would sponsor these kids, it actually may make it easier for a school who isn't making money on football to compete. the only kids this system would affect are kids who have a chance to make money in their sport. just like kids who major in sociology don't get the internships that kids who major in engineering do. but mack's salary is a lot more dependent on vince than vince's is on mack's. the kids are still the product.
But that's the nature of an internship or apprenticeship. Medical resident students don't make crap compared to what they do - but they do it because it gets them a higher future salary. That's the case everywhere. Getting an college or law or whatever education is the same thing - its time & effort you're investing to earn a higher future salary from someone else. The school gets money from you and gives you an education. The hospitals get hard work from you, and gives you experience. The same is true for college football - the college/ncaa makes money off of you, and gives you valuable experience (and exposure) for your next job. I guess I just don't see the problem here.
It's not like athletes are the only people who have money made off of them. Scientists and researchers etc, invent things all the time that millions are made off of. Working for any compnay you have money made off of you. Vince already has endorsement deals etc that are based a great deal on the popularity he has from winning a championship at UT.
I dont know about the Mack thing. I think that coaches helping him with his throwing etc has increased his value by tens of millions. Mack's salary isn't tens of millions different now that he has vince than it was with major applewhite (yes it has increased some, maybe a mil a year)
I just don't want an NFL team controlling a college football team.. I hate the fact that many aren't real students as it is now, I can't imagine how bad it would be if you had an NFL team running the show.
this a post I made three years on this subject in a thread about maruice clarrett Fiscal year 7/01/02 to 6/30/02, the football program at OSU brought in $25,567,612. I just added football program revenue plus bowl game revenue. This is the website. http://senate.ohio-state.edu/2003-02-13SPacket.pdf Assuming there were 50 full scholorship players on the team, that would be $800M in student expenses, and only 3% of the total revenues of the program. And that doesn't include what they received from winning the National Championship as these numbers aren't available yet. Does 3% seem fair???
link COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio State's athletic program is the nation's top collegiate sports moneymaker. Ohio State made $89.7 million from ticket sales, royalties, advertising, broadcast agreements and other sources during the 2004-05 academic year, about $50,000 more than second-place Texas, according to U.S. Department of Education statistics. The Buckeyes' top rival, Michigan, placed third on the list at $78.4 million, followed by Florida ($77.4 million) and Wisconsin ($75.3 million). Ohio State has the most athletes and teams among the NCAA's Division I schools. "You always want to be the biggest and the best," said athletic director Gene Smith, in charge of a self-sufficient department that has more than 900 student-athletes in 36 sports. Ohio State sports receive no money from the government or the university. Ohio State didn't rank first in every category, determined by reports filed annually under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. Teams that don't produce revenue decreased profit at Ohio State to slightly more than $120,000. Georgia had the nation's most profitable college sports program, making $23.9 million more than it spent. Texas was tops in football revenue with $53.2 million, better than runner-up Ohio State's $51.8 million. The Longhorns also had the most profitable football program, making $38.7 million after expenses. Ohio State was eighth in that category with $26.1 million. Ohio State was 10th in men's basketball revenue ($11.4 million) and eighth in profit ($7.3 million). Its women's basketball program spent nearly $2 million more than it earned. you guys are right, texas football made over $38MM after expenses, that's fair. I really don't think you guys understand how much money these big programs are making. I'm not even suggesting that they share this income with students. i'm suggesting they cut the freaking charade.
38 mil is the top teams, and most are WAY below that. But I said OVERALL, athletic program.. a lot of schools make some money on football, but the time they pay for all the money losers don't make a profit. Yes, there are some that do. But the vast majority of teams aren't making very much profit off of their entire athletic program as a whole.
especially the private schools that are having to pay 40k a year tuition for golfers, etc that don't bring in revenue. In the overall picture.. 38 mil profit by the football team is nothing for a university as far as overall income
Well, depending on the school, some athletes are getting up to 40k a year of expenses covered. There are companies all over the country who pay employees 40k a year that bring in a lot more than 38 mil a year profit
"Teams that don't produce revenue decreased profit at Ohio State to slightly more than $120,000. Georgia had the nation's most profitable college sports program, making $23.9 million more than it spent" So the most profitable program is making 23.9 million. And Ohio State is making only 120k.. Basically NOTHING. If Ohio State is only making 120k, don't you think most programs are losing money?
Those numbers do not accurately measure the amount of value that a winning sports program brings, such as increased alumni donations, student applications, etc.
Depends on the school. Studies I've read in sports econ classes showed that success in sports didn't increase overall quality of incoming applications. The total amount of increased donations is questionable depending on where it is donated. If the money is being directly donated to the athletic department, then it isn't bringing in money to the actual university.
