G league and overseas. It is the NBA that created the rule, not the NCAA. They sure don’t have to be a “slave” like you stated.
Emmert on Paying players
- Thread starter mbc82584
- Start date
What would happen if you didn't have this sports industry? Sure, ADs make good money but they are managing an entire sports program of hundreds of athletes, facilities, travel, schedules, tournaments, etc... These kids are benefiting whether you want to believe it or not. They get the very best of everything and whether they pursue a professional career or go on into life and get a job, these student-athletes benefit tremendously. It's not just the athletes that create this revenue!
Did SGA build the infrastructure to showcase his ability? No NBA was knocking down SGA’s door to get him to the G league to develop him. No Euro team was looking to sign him.
If Shai wanted to have one of those admins salaries he should have gotten his degree and applied for for one of those jobs. He signed up to be an amateur athlete, go to college for free have all his living expenses paid for and to receive a stipend of nearly $900 a month. If he wanted to be a professional athlete that gets paid to play basketball he could've gone to the G League or 1 of the many professional leagues overseas.
The kid that changed his mind about going to Syracuse might be starting the new thing, go to the G league for a year instead of being a OAD and get paid, get shoe contract, get a loan, whatever, no rules from the NCAA to worry about.
This situation bears watching folks. If the NBA thinks it helps them, why wouldn't they up the salaries some in the G league and get these kids under contract earlier without all the millions up front with a OAD. This way they set the pace for the next contract.
The Emmerts of the world might want to to pull their head out of the sand and make the changes needed to help these kids.
This situation bears watching folks. If the NBA thinks it helps them, why wouldn't they up the salaries some in the G league and get these kids under contract earlier without all the millions up front with a OAD. This way they set the pace for the next contract.
The Emmerts of the world might want to to pull their head out of the sand and make the changes needed to help these kids.
Why does he 'deserve' anything more than what he already is getting? SGA didn't make UK the successful program that it is. He is part of the UK history and SGA benefited TREMENDOUSLY by the training and exposure that he has received. The millions that UK receives in revenue from tickets and TV contracts is reinvested in the school. Compare SGA's experience to that of the typical student and tell me who has it better? Your entire argument is lame that these kids are being held hostage or somehow equating this to slavery...
Wonder what that chicken hawk has to say about the Bagleys being provided a MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE (literally ) and entrance into private schools attended by millionaire celebrities.... when just the year before the fam was making s very modest 44k/year and had declared bankruptcy (#michaelscott)
Now Zion is getting some major Nike love all of a sudden.
Wonder how that works?
Now Zion is getting some major Nike love all of a sudden.
Wonder how that works?
Not as lame as your argument trying to compare a guy like SGA to a normal student. A normal student doesn’t generate millions of dollars for the school. Plus, if they somehow did (say through groundbreaking research) THEY COULD GET PAID BECAUSE OF IT. Bad, bad comparison.
You're talking about UK. You have to make this decision across college athletics. Would Murray State for example be able to pay all athletes? I don't think they can. UK is one the very few profitable athletic departments. Most lose money.
Also is the issue that I've brought up several times. If you pay them then they are employees. Can you fire them for not scoring enough points per game. How many on here are willing to see a large number of kids nationally lose a shot at a college degree because their points per game average is low? How many on our boards criticize Petrino for pulling a scholarship from a kid because a really good transfer student wanted to transfer in. You pay these players and those stories will happen a lot more.
Also title IX will cause major issues. You can't pay Keven Knox more than you pay a member of UK's women's team even though it would make sense to do so. Title IX is already causing major budget issues for most colleges. Some colleges have had to cancel men's programs just to comply with title IX. A few years back UCLA canceled their men's gymnastics program in order to comply with title IX. They still have a women's gymnastics program but not a men's. These kind of issues will also get magnified when it comes to paying players.
Allowing players to profit from their likeness is another idea that gets thrown around but it to is more problematic than it seems. Now you are directly involving agents which will almost certainly worsen the issues we are seeing now. In addition to that for a player to maximize his earning potential in that system he has to be used in a certain way. He would have to get the ball a certain number of times etc. Are you willing to have Kevin Knox's agent tell Coach Cal how to game plan.
Clearly the old view of amateurism is dying but I still haven't seen a good suggestion on how to replace or what with. The most likely case that will do the least harm is to give these athletes a real stipend that is monitored by the NCAA. There would still be funding issues with that but that is something that could be done and not bring a lot of the negative aspects of the NBA or NFL into college sports.
I think the reason Chuck said to do your research is because your takes are emotional and superficial. I don't have time to explain it all to you now but I will in a few hours.
The money you’re talking about is a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of money needed to pay athletes. You can thank title 9 for that.
So the players shouldn’t be able to make any $ based on their own autographs or on their own Jersey sales ?
What about the multi billion $$ endorsement deal with TV outlets... who deserves the billions and billions of dollars? I agree that we shouldn’t “pay” players but I believe if Shai Alexander wants to sign some autographs at K-Lair for $10 a pop he should be able to
Can you link/ provide which players you’re speaking of that “find enough money for thousands of dollars in tattoos?”
How much is an average tattoo our players get? Where do they get these tattoos?
It seems like you know more than the rest of us about our guys tats so just hoping you can provide some better clarity
Who said players go to bed hungry? This post is ignorant hyperbole, which is unfortunate because you’ve made a few solid posts the last few days.
Last edited:
So, each and every college athlete gets $900 a month in addition to everything else?
If true (it very well may be... I’m intrigued) you should be able to provide some sources/ links/ articles etc verifying this claim?
Not enough money to go around because the employees need to make exorbitant salaries off the backs of their serfs
Honest question, because you bring up a solid point , is there like a list or breakdown of where the (multiple ) millions of $$$ that UK (any major school really ) gets, goes? Does it mostly go to coaches (many coaches making 3,4,5,6,7 , 8 million dollars every year plus bonus’s? Millions of $$ dividend uo for AD’s / assistants/ other coaches, trainers etc?)
Or how is it “put back into the school” exactly? I mean I’m sure some is,... but?
Guys the idea that Athletic Departments have enough money to spend on athletes beyond what they already do (no other group of students on campus has chefs, nutritionists, massage therapists, chiropractors, unlimited gear for every season, etc...) is just not true.
Sure, athletics makes a lot of money but they also spend a lot of money. Facilities, upgrades/renovations, capital projects, salaries of employees, recruiting budgets, travel budgets, and on and on.
Emmert, is right and he's not the only one who has made the argument that paying is hindered by title 9. It's not just women's sports that would suffer either, all non revenue sports would start to be affected.
The second you make paying athletes legal in a free market type of set up, programs are going to write checks to 80-90 of the best football players they can get and that is going to come out of soccer, golf, softball, volleyball, gymnastics, etc.
The second you open that can of worms it becomes a messy road. Pay disputes, strikes for more pay, law suits because football players are making more than women's soccer players, coaches and ADs have to go through contract negotiations with players every year, other programs tampering with and luring away talent....
Those are all issues for big time programs who make enough money to even consider paying players beyond what they already do in perks, scholarships, and cost of living. But think of all the programs who are barely keeping their head above water. EKU is considering cutting some sports because they're not making any money and the state is slashing budgets. There are mores programs like that than programs like Bama, USC, UK, etc...
"Oh the NCAA makes billions"...indeed, but after they pay all their bills/overhead/debts they don't have enough to pay 460,000 student athletes.
Sure, athletics makes a lot of money but they also spend a lot of money. Facilities, upgrades/renovations, capital projects, salaries of employees, recruiting budgets, travel budgets, and on and on.
Emmert, is right and he's not the only one who has made the argument that paying is hindered by title 9. It's not just women's sports that would suffer either, all non revenue sports would start to be affected.
The second you make paying athletes legal in a free market type of set up, programs are going to write checks to 80-90 of the best football players they can get and that is going to come out of soccer, golf, softball, volleyball, gymnastics, etc.
The second you open that can of worms it becomes a messy road. Pay disputes, strikes for more pay, law suits because football players are making more than women's soccer players, coaches and ADs have to go through contract negotiations with players every year, other programs tampering with and luring away talent....
Those are all issues for big time programs who make enough money to even consider paying players beyond what they already do in perks, scholarships, and cost of living. But think of all the programs who are barely keeping their head above water. EKU is considering cutting some sports because they're not making any money and the state is slashing budgets. There are mores programs like that than programs like Bama, USC, UK, etc...
"Oh the NCAA makes billions"...indeed, but after they pay all their bills/overhead/debts they don't have enough to pay 460,000 student athletes.
Mark Emmert raked in $1.9 million in 2015.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...a-mark-emmert-oliver-luck-salaries/101829110/
Ignorant hyperbole? Ha! Poor Frankie tries so hard but comes up empty time after time. Shabazz Nappier said it after UConn won the National Championship in 2014, it was a huge story that was picked up by all the media outlets and has been a talking point of people who say the players are exploited. Again, LOL at ignorant hyperbole.
just shut it all down. turn college football, basketball, baseball, etc into club sports. regular students only. let the NBA/NFL just create their farm system and let all the kids go there if they want. if they want to play the sport in college, they will have to get in and pay for it like everyone else. no special exceptions.
Geez, do I have to explain everything to you? No not every school and it's not the same amount of money for each school. Every powe 5 school and I guess anyone else who can afford it pays student athletes a stipend based on cost of attendance. Each school sets three own cost of attendance between $2,000 and $5,000 per semester.
Good points, but I still don’t see anything wrong with players profiting off their likeness. This does not cost the schools a dime. Okay, so the NCAA thinks this will widen the gap between the haves and have nots. Maybe you won’t see as many George Masons and Loyolas. So what? The same bodes true in this capitalistic society. There will always be classes, just as the Power 5 will always have a leg up on the smaller schools. As Bruce Hornsby once sang, “That’s just the way it is.”
As for the agents, they seem pretty dang prevelant under the current rules. Why couldn’t the NCAA give schools the power to hire their own agents to negotiate deals for the players? They already employ people who negotiate the multimedia deals and shoe contracts. What would be the difference?
That would be the "right" and "fair" thing to do. People would lose their minds though.
it would be the death of college athletics as we know it. and maybe that the way it should be. i'm of the mind that there is no "in between" solution that will remotely work. a 2k or 5k stipend is a joke when coaches are making that an hour as the money just gets bigger and bigger.
either shut it down or let the players earn whatever they can get and dont regulate it, live with the result. nothing in between will really "work". you will still have the issues we have now. all in or all out.
This stupid ass stuff about (colleges) paying college players is ridiculous. We all know some players don’t deserve “equal pay”, which is why you let the free market decide. If a local store wants to bring in a player to sign autographs, let them. This isn’t hard...and it takes colleges paying anything out of it
All true. All irrelevant.
This is infrastructure that the NCAA has put in place. Much if it unnecessary and ineffective. They are supporting that on the backs of athletes, while not struggling for their next meal, are not fairly compensated for their contribution.
Emmert is lamenting loss of revenue to an organization rife with corruption, waste and excess.
I say let them burn.
You are right but exactly what happens when government gets involved where they should not. Title IX eliminates a lot of reasonable possibilities for the revenue producers. But honestly if this were done, boosters would provide "guaranteed fees" for autograph signings to lure a kid to their school.
I struggle with any other solution under the current system and I usually stay out of these but when people insinuate that folks coaching, providing the structure and everything for athletes to take advantage of are nothing more than modern day slave masters and overpaid it hits a button. If it were so damn easy to make the money the NCAA/Universities have done, I simply want to know given the billions of dollars involved why hasn't someone that is doing all the bitching created an alternative? Could it be because their is a tremendous value in the current NCAA structure that people want? Otherwise why not just form a league for these people to go directly to and pay for play. Oh that is right, nobody gives two shits about the G league/other leagues.
Now some kids may go to the G league right out of school and that is fine but to think that the loyalty doesn't rest with the college is wrong. May lead to a power shift where kids go pro right away and the future student athlete is more of a student. So be it. I personally am not looking for a minor league team but will enjoy the college team.
I'm curious about that also. I wonder if he can tell me how much I paid for the one in my avatar??
It just don't seem like it'd be that simple to me. There's too many gray areas of the whole thing. So would a tennis player deserve to make what a football player makes? Talk about causing an uproar. When people talk about paying college athletes what kind of money are they talking? $20,000 or $80,000? Does Johnny David make the same as Kevin Knox? Do we start paying high school players who play in the AAU circuits? These AAU teams are making tons of money also.
If someone is willing to pay a tennis player as much as a QB. Let them. That’s the whole point. It doesn’t matter who gets what. You get what someone is willing to give you.
You're saying that the NCAA is gonna be willing to pay a tennis player what a QB makes..that's not gonna happen. That's my point. You can't pay a college tennis player what a college football player makes when football can fill up an 80,000 seat stadium. And it will matter who gets what. Think about the uproar it'd cause if they payed a soccer player $15,000 a year then payed a basketball player $35,000 a year.
That dude doesnt have a shoe deal, he will make maybe $23k and have to pay for a place to live, utilities, transportation, and food.
The players can get whatever they want, no one at UK, the NCAA, or any other NCAA institution puts a gun to these athletes heads and forces them to be NCAA athletes.
Market restrictions and regulations put them to an insatiable choice: publicity or small pay.
That’s what people are barking about
How is that the NCAA's fault? They dont trick the kids, they dont force them to play college ball, they just chose to be an amateur sport. If athletes dont like they can play elsewhere, if fans dont like it, they shouldn't support NCAA schools. Life can be easy, why make it hard.
Fine, if they want to be amateur non profit, and play that game, admins should make minimum salaries and schools should donate all dollars that don’t fund programs to charity and good works.
As long as old dudes are making millions it’s a farce. They know they have the only marketable venue for these kids to get exposure.
Nope, they should get whatever the market says they get which is their worth.
Maybe you should try the G-League since the NCAA is such a farce, they need all the help they can get.
