ADVERTISEMENT

Dakich gets in Twitter war with Kaminsky on player benefits

I can only speak for myself, but I watch Kentucky Basketball. Players come and go. I can't tell you the last time I watched a team other than Kentucky because I wanted to see a specific player.

Well.. other than a train wreck like that kid from Ole Miss, and I can't even remember his name now

Here in lies the fallacy.

You don't pay to see one player. You pay to see PLAYERS. Remove the kids from the equation, and there is no product.

Did UK help John Wall? Yes, but don't get it twisted, Wall helped UK.

When the modern collegiate athlete system was put into place, they weren't making hundreds of millions on TV deals.

Now they are. And while that money may help other sports, let's not act like coaches and admins don't benefit.

While I want UK to be able to pay a coach the top end salary, do K and company need to be at 8 figures?

I don't think paying kids is the answer, but an education in exchange for the Monopoly that makes every suit richer is nothibg short of criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWes11
I would summarize it by saying you are playing for whoever is paying you.

They have a "contract" with UK that says for agreeing to work your ass off and play for Kentucky basketball, you will get free tuition, free room and board, free gear, free counseling, etc.,

If the scholarship aspect is taken away, they may "play" for Kentucky, but they are being paid by another entity.

They are no longer amateur by definition - they are professional with obligations to a revenue producer that may or may not be in conflict with the goals of the team.

I think the best possible solution is to develop a revenue sharing approach where players receive a certain amount tied to the revenues of their sport across the spectrum. It won't be anything near what they would hope it would be if they are a potential superstar, but its the only way to keep the sports competitive among all 300+ DI schools. So a basketball player might get $1500 a semester, a lacrosse player might get $250. It would strictly be a zero sum game from the schools meaning the money comes from a pool managed by the NCAA.
 
Here in lies the fallacy.

You don't pay to see one player. You pay to see PLAYERS. Remove the kids from the equation, and there is no product.

Did UK help John Wall? Yes, but don't get it twisted, Wall helped UK.

When the modern collegiate athlete system was put into place, they weren't making hundreds of millions on TV deals.

Now they are. And while that money may help other sports, let's not act like coaches and admins don't benefit.

While I want UK to be able to pay a coach the top end salary, do K and company need to be at 8 figures?

I don't think paying kids is the answer, but an education in exchange for the Monopoly that makes every suit richer is nothibg short of criminal.

I don't think I have it twisted. You have to be able to quantify how much John Wall helped UK in order to tie some value to it what he, as an individual, deserves as opposed to him being a group of players. Does John Wall deserve more money than Perry Stevenson for his contribution to UK?

Now if we are talking about paying kids equally for the role they have in collegiate sports, then I think there are avenues that can be explored.
 
This doesn't help
coaches-database-highest-lowest-v4.jpg


http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...-championship-coach-salary-database/99744558/
 
How many people actually read what Kaminsky said? He wasn't saying the schools should pay the players. He was saying he should have been allowed to profit off of his own image. If he wants to sell autographs, or a Wisconsin jersey with his name on the back, he should be allowed to. If you're a scrub at a lower tier school you aren't making any money. But if you are a top player who people want to see then you can make some money from that. I think that is more than fair
 
Pay coaches like you pay professors and stop selling ad revenue for billions and then maybe you have a point. But all college basketball athletes in D1, especially P5, are being exploited by the schools, the NCAA and ESPN. You see everyone is getting rich, except the people that folks are paying to see.

Obviously you missed my point. Granted if you solely look at the top players and top teams then they're clearly being exploited. Completely agree.

My point however is that when you look at the grand scheme of things (which since apparently I have to list it out includes not just other Division I players, but players of ALL divisions, and not just basketball and football but ALL sports, and not just men but women sports as well.)

When you consider all of the above, gaining a scholarship or some financial aid etc. to play sports and receive an education is generally a very good deal. People will tend to obsess about the Karl Towns and Frank Kaminsky's of the world but in actuality, those marquee players make up a tiny fraction of the people involved in college athletics.
 
Obviously you missed my point. Granted if you solely look at the top players and top teams then they're clearly being exploited. Completely agree.

My point however is that when you look at the grand scheme of things (which since apparently I have to list it out includes not just other Division I players, but players of ALL divisions, and not just basketball and football but ALL sports, and not just men but women sports as well.)

When you consider all of the above, gaining a scholarship or some financial aid etc. to play sports and receive an education is generally a very good deal. People will tend to obsess about the Karl Towns and Frank Kaminsky's of the world but in actuality, those marquee players make up a tiny fraction of the people involved in college athletics.

Fair enough. But that doesn't change the fact that D1 men's basketball & football players get screwed so the "adults" can get rich. My point was that it's not just guys like Frank and Karl, it's all of the players that make up D1, in mens bball and fball.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT