Unofficial Official 2012-13 College Basketball Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I and most people I know had not only had to pay for going to college (plus working as a TA/RA in grad school) but we also had to qualify academically (and get accepted into our chose major). It would've been nice not to been able to do any of those things.

How many millions did you bring in to your school because of your talents? I guess libertarian ideals stop at college sports.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Don't forget room, board, tutors,and playing a game you love.

If it's such a great deal as you imply, just open up the market and let them be paid. I mean if it's such a great deal, surely these kids wouldn't be able to make more money. They have it all!

[chadritt]

If we start paying them do they still get scholarships? It seems only fair that they have to pay tuition on their own at that point.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While looking for the primary hashtag being used on Twitter, I just -- very unfortunately for me -- ran across a still that basically zoomed in on the leg. Fair warning: turn off images if you try to read the latest Tweets about him via searching.

I don't know whether to be or or

I saw that too by accident. It's the most gruesome thing I've ever seen in sports. Still bothers me to think about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chadritt

If we start paying them do they still get scholarships? It seems only fair that they have to pay tuition on their own at that point.

Up to the school to decide.

[chadritt]

Are they official employees of the school? That could get interesting if so, id imagine it would place more restrictions on their behavior.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Are they official employees of the school? That could get interesting if so, id imagine it would place more restrictions on their behavior.

No, they aren't employees. It's why they were designated "student-athletes". It allows the schools to act as a cartel and fix the price of labor.

Even if you don't believe schools have any part in paying players, athletes should absolutely be allowed to accept endorsements. Be allowed to charge for their autograph or services. And absolutely be allowed to work side jobs and make as much money as they can.

[chadritt]

I meant if they start getting paid cash do they become official employees of the university, sorry.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

For someone who doesn't follow women's basketball closely, what makes them unlikable? Is there a men's team comparison? (Based on the little bit of context here, I'm thinking something like 1991 UNLV?)

Off the top of my head, the Ewing-era Georgetown teams come to mind a bit ... minus anybody kinda tolerable like a Fred Jackson.

The coach is shrill, the players remind me of the Laimbeer Pistons, and $5 says that Griner has a higher testosterone level than that transgender MMA fighter that was in the news recently.

[stevew]

I was just in Tennessee this weekend and they were going to force a $125/semester tuition increase so ETSU could bring back their shitty football program and their current "minidome" is partially condemned.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

happy for wichita state but not looking forward to the pun apocalypse

I chaff at this remark.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chadritt

I meant if they start getting paid cash do they become official employees of the university, sorry.

I believe so. Way around it would be to keep the current scholarship rules and just allow them to earn as much as they can in other jobs.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i had managed to avoid it and my mother of all people emailed it to me in hi-res 600x400. ffs

Originally Posted by britrock88

I chaff at this remark.

it's too bad vcu got knocked out or we could've had shockers shock shaka in shocker

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Firstly, this is remarkably insulting (jewelry, cars, tattoos? Seriously? There are very strong connotations here). Secondly, why on earth shouldn't they get to decide just like anyone else in a profession? You and I can do whatever we want with the money we earn, why not them?

Give me a break. If anyone here should be insulted it should be me by your gross misinterpretation, purposely, of my comment. I challenge you to find any racial connotations in my 32,000+ posts here.

Try reading my comment in the context of your original comment. If this kid had been paid he wouldn't likely be any better off following the injury. Remember a couple of years ago the Miami rookie who lost a 40K earing during training camp? How about Shaun Rodgers who just had 600K in jewelry stolen. These guys are pros and make horrible financial decisions. As do many others. Spreewell, VY, etc... I recently heard a stat and something like 75% of NFL players are broke 3 years out of the league

If you don't think that is EXACTLY what these kids would do if someone dropped a pile of money in their laps then you are incredibly ignorant.

BTW- I am white and have 5 tattoos, and would likely have bought a car when I was 18 if I had come into some money. It isn't about being black, white, purple, or any other color, its about being an 18 year old kid, but hey, if you can discredit someones argument by making them look like a racist that is a super strategy to take.

[whomario]

Why not have the proposed money go into heavy health insurance packages instead ? (honestly not knowing: Who is legally having to pay for the money for that kids medical bills ? Is that covered in any shape by the NCAA or the school ?) Maybe have it paid out to them in pension-type ways ?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by whomario

Why not have the proposed money go into heavy health insurance packages instead ? (honestly not knowing: Who is legally having to pay for the money for that kids medical bills ? Is that covered in any shape by the NCAA or the school ?) Maybe have it paid out to them in pension-type ways ?

It's not covered by the NCAA or the universities. Because student-athletes are not employees of the university, they don't have to cover medical costs, so if a player gets hurt, it's up to the player to pay for it. (And yes, the NCAA and its member schools have won court cases over this)

[Izulde]

The problem with paying players, as good as it sounds in theory, is that as it stands right now (and apologies if this got mentioned on a prior page) only about 20 Division I athletic departments break even or make a profit. And in most cases, that profit is quite slim (UNLV is one example of this).

If players are paid on top of the grant-in-aid, that means even greater athletic department deficits, which means more money taken away from academics.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by chadritt

I meant if they start getting paid cash do they become official employees of the university, sorry.

That depends on how they word the payments. If it's a stipend, I *think* they can still be classified as non-employees.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, they aren't employees. It's why they were designated "student-athletes". It allows the schools to act as a cartel and fix the price of labor.

Even if you don't believe schools have any part in paying players, athletes should absolutely be allowed to accept endorsements. Be allowed to charge for their autograph or services. And absolutely be allowed to work side jobs and make as much money as they can.

Endorsements, charging for things, sure.

Side jobs? No. Being the athlete part of a student-athlete is already a full-time job in and of itself, and if you have them working side jobs on top of it, their academics are going to crash and burn.

But if you have endorsements and pay for sign, then you would also need to abolish the NCAA restriction on student-athletes having legal representation.

[molson]

I bet today Louisville officials are having a long meeting with Kevin Ware about what kind of help he is and isn't allowed to get during his recovery under NCAA regulations. Get-well-gifts, rides to the hospital, pizza deliveries, lodging arrangements for his parents if they want to visit, whatever, everything has to be carefully monitored and in most cases declined to avoid NCAA trouble.

I don't understand why people get so offended with these guys having a little spending money. Don't worry, the Kevin Ware's of the world won't be making millions and wearing lots of bling. There's a lot of college athletes, most of these guys aren't really worth that much individually. But collectively, the value they bring v. what the universities keep, is the definition of "unfair" (if that's the definition by which we're decide, as message board posters, we can set these guys' value for some reason, even though we wouldn't do that for any other kind of contract/business arrangement.). Tuition is a great deal, for sure. Though being a major athlete, you don't have the same opportunities that a regular student does - and many of those regular students DO get huge financial aid packages if they're elite in their field, like these athletes are. But those other students aren't required to provide the crazy time/travel commitment that major college athletes are required to give. Regular students have regular class schedules, can have internships, summer employment to gain experience, the opportunity for activities that actually enhance their employment prospects and have to do with their degree program. The college doesn't take a bunch of time and travel off the top for them like for unrelated activities like they do for the athletes. It's clear from day one - they're there to play sports, to perform a valuable service for their billion-dollar industry. And with that comes all of the financial classifications and restrictions that are in place ONLY so the universities can keep more money - that's the only reason they exist, greed, and because they can get away with it. But they get the general public to be generally on board with the arrangement too, through jealousy and resentment, mostly.

Edit: I mean come on, if the standard is what's "enough", and what's "fair" from a third-party perspective, don't the universities make way, way more than "enough"? Have you seen the size of these TV contracts?

[Izulde]

I'll also add that not all athletic scholarships are full scholarships. Some are just tuition, some are tuition and room/board, some are even partial tuition. Furthermore, for those who aren't aware, scholarships aren't guaranteed for the full four/five years.

They're for one year only, and have to be renewed each year, and that renewal is up to the individual team's coach.

[molson]

Remember this one that was proposed a few years ago, but then was immediately subject to intense backlash from the universities? The NCAA wanted to authorize $2,000 payments per semester to more closely account for what college life really costs after tuition, books, and lodging. This is far from a free market situation but the schools fought HARD against this. I made close to that much working part-time in a computer lab in college. And I just sat there and played on the internet.

NCAA weighing $2,000 payments to student athletes - ESPN

[molson]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'll also add that not all athletic scholarships are full scholarships. Some are just tuition, some are tuition and room/board, some are even partial tuition. Furthermore, for those who aren't aware, scholarships aren't guaranteed for the full four/five years.

They're for one year only, and have to be renewed each year, and that renewal is up to the individual team's coach.

He's lucky it was such a high profile incident - Louisville won't be able to cut him and they probably will cover all of his medical bills. When the injury is less dramatic, and doesn't occur on national TV, and especially if it leads to a chronic condition instead of something that is gruesome and youtube worthy, that isn't always the case:

With Insufficient Insurance, Injured Athletes Add Medical Bills to College Debt - NYTimes.com

[Marmel]

I hate the idea of paying the players. Nobody is forcing them to attend college. If they don't like playing for free, then don't go play. It is that simple.

I do think they should be able to get on campus jobs where the pay is closely monitored so that they have some spending money.

These guys get a free higher education. Most people would kill for that opportunity.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I hate the idea of paying the players. Nobody is forcing them to attend college. If they don't like playing for free, then don't go play. It is that simple.

I do think they should be able to get on campus jobs where the pay is closely monitored so that they have some spending money.

These guys get a free higher education. Most people would kill for that opportunity.

+1.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

Remember this one that was proposed a few years ago, but then was immediately subject to intense backlash from the universities? The NCAA wanted to authorize $2,000 payments per semester to more closely account for what college life really costs after tuition, books, and lodging. This is far from a free market situation but the schools fought HARD against this. I made close to that much working part-time in a computer lab in college. And I just sat there and played on the internet.

NCAA weighing $2,000 payments to student athletes - ESPN

I made more than that working at the student newspaper for goodness sakes. Before that, I took worked at the computer lab making about that too. On the other side, I know lots of students who are on full scholarship who manage to get refunded money because when you're eligible for financial aid and then get scholarships on top, the leftover money gets refunded to the student in the form of a check.

Alas, you have plenty of students on full ride "making" thousands. Plus whatever jobs they might decide to hold down working for their favorite prof as a work study or whatever else they can muster.

You can say "hey, they earned that by working hard." Sure. So athletes don't earn what they make? People have this glorified idea that students can major in anything they want and have full access to all of the benefits of the academy as athletes. Sure, some minor athlete in a sport no one cares about might have that freedom. But for players on high-profile teams who maybe aren't in the coaches good graces or who knows what else? That freedom isn't afforded them.

And this fallacy of the "world class education" is also hilarious. The kid at some low-level D1 school is getting about as good an education as the working mom who juggles her classes between raising kids, working two jobs and going to community college.

Let's not get carried away.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The problem with paying players, as good as it sounds in theory, is that as it stands right now (and apologies if this got mentioned on a prior page) only about 20 Division I athletic departments break even or make a profit. And in most cases, that profit is quite slim (UNLV is one example of this).

If players are paid on top of the grant-in-aid, that means even greater athletic department deficits, which means more money taken away from academics.

That's why those schools in all likelihood wouldn't be paying their players any more than a token sum, if that.

I mean, what top-tier talents are going to those non-elite programs as it is? It's not as if UNLV is churning out lottery picks. They get kids who aren't good enough to be recruited by Kentucky, Duke, KU, UNC, etc. So by-and-large, they're not the ones that are good enough to be paid. At least much above the "league minimum," which I would still set as your standard scholarship. They have little leverage to be able to get much else.

[muns]

Originally Posted by molson

He's lucky it was such a high profile incident - Louisville won't be able to cut him and they probably will cover all of his medical bills. When the injury is less dramatic, and doesn't occur on national TV, and especially if it leads to a chronic condition instead of something that is gruesome and youtube worthy, that isn't always the case:

With Insufficient Insurance, Injured Athletes Add Medical Bills to College Debt - NYTimes.com

Most schools require medical insurance to enroll in their institution. That may or may not be affected by them living in their housing system or if they live off campus.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by stevew

I was just in Tennessee this weekend and they were going to force a $125/semester tuition increase so ETSU could bring back their shitty football program and their current "minidome" is partially condemned.

FGCU has a huge fee for their athletic programs. It is insane.

FGCU student body President Peter Cuderman said he also expects student fees to rise, though that won’t be known for several months.

At George Mason, students shouldered an increased load after the Colonials’ tournament run, according to data compiled from NCAA revenues and expense reports by USA TODAY. Total student fees rose from $8.4 million in 2006 to $12.2 million in 2011. Donations, by comparison, rose from about $465,000 to $1 million during that time, the newspaper reported.

At FGCU, student fees, which are about $500 per year for student taking a standard 30-hour course load, constitute 47 percent of revenues, compared to 5 percent from donors, according to NCAA revenue and expense reports. The rest comes from the university, advertising, ticket sales and other sources.

“The students have done more than their fair share,” Kavanagh said.

There are stories occasionally of students who will reject the fee increases and certain institutions who will decline moving up to a different level as a result. But you have to figure most of them are borrowing the money or not paying for it themselves, so they don't care about $500 if it means "being big time."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by muns

Most schools require medical insurance to enroll in their institution. That may or may not be affected by them living in their housing system or if they live off campus.

What muns said. They'll usually give you info about a plan the school is connected to, which is really just some kind of catastrophic policy which means the requirement if one doesn't have it. But..you can't enroll at any four-year school as an on-campus student (or even off-campus at some liberal arts schools) without proof of health insurance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I hate the idea of paying the players. Nobody is forcing them to attend college. If they don't like playing for free, then don't go play. It is that simple.

I do think they should be able to get on campus jobs where the pay is closely monitored so that they have some spending money.

These guys get a free higher education. Most people would kill for that opportunity.

So basically, you're jealous of what they do get so you don't want them to get anything else. Do you apply that reasoning to any of the other individuals that benefit from the near $1 billion dollars that big-time college sports generates a year? Let's just take head coaches. "Most people would kill for the opportunity" to make $5 million to be a basketball or football coach. So by your reasoning, it should be a national rule that coaches can only be paid in free graduate school classes. That would certainly be "enough", it would be more than you or I got (and therefore, it'd be "fair"), and from there, it'd be up to the coach to take advantage of the opportunity.

[Young Drachma]

fwiw, I don't really think we should pay players in practice. I think the olympic model is the most sustainable one for college sports. I just laugh at people who seem to think that the status quo is fair under the guise of "omgz, they get scholarships."

[molson]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

What muns said. They'll usually give you info about a plan the school is connected to, which is really just some kind of catastrophic policy which means the requirement if one doesn't have it. But..you can't enroll at any four-year school as an on-campus student (or even off-campus at some liberal arts schools) without proof of health insurance.

Who pays for the insurance? What if the families' can't afford it?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by molson

Who pays for the insurance? What if the families' can't afford it?

I believe it gets assessed as part of your student tuition and fees. I know when I worked as a graduate assistant both at Arkansas and UNLV, we received discounted insurance, but the remaining insurance bill was tacked on as part of the tuition/fees each semester.

[Young Drachma]

What Izulde said. Just gets added to your bill.

[molson]

So the school pays for it as part of the scholarship offer (and it goes away if the scholarship goes away, and like as described in the NYTimes article, it has limits and probably won't help you out when your injuries cause long-term problems). I always assumed as much but I got a little thrown off when people said, "you can't enroll if you're not insured," when of course, by definition, enrolling means you're ensured because that's part of the deal.

[Izulde]

The school paying for it part would go away if the scholarship did. The student would then have to pay for that insurance plan themselves and fund it through loans, money saved from working or whatever, or other scholarships they could find, the same as a regular student.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by molson

So basically, you're jealous of what they do get so you don't want them to get anything else. Do you apply that reasoning to any of the other individuals that benefit from the near $1 billion dollars that big-time college sports generates a year? Let's just take head coaches. "Most people would kill for the opportunity" to make $5 million to be a basketball or football coach. So by your reasoning, it should be a national rule that coaches can only be paid in free graduate school classes. That would certainly be "enough", it would be more than you or I got (and therefore, it'd be "fair"), and from there, it'd be up to the coach to take advantage of the opportunity.

You are comparing a professional job (coaching) to an amateur player.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marmel

You are comparing a professional job (coaching) to an amateur player.

Which are definitions created by the NCAA and the universities to maximize revenue, that's what we're discussing here. There's no reason a head coach can't be an unpaid graduate student. There's no reason basketball can't be a part-time job like working in a computer lab or on the student newspaper. It's only that way because that's the way the people in power can make the most money, and because they can get away with it.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, I think I missed something here. When I went to college (SDSU and UNC), free health care was provided as part of the student fees, including acute care like for stitches and such. When I had my ski accident in grad school, I got free rehab therapy. I didn't, however, have any major emergencies. Has that all changed?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Ok, I think I missed something here. When I went to college (SDSU and UNC), free health care was provided as part of the student fees, including acute care like for stitches and such. When I had my ski accident in grad school, I got free rehab therapy. I didn't, however, have any major emergencies. Has that all changed?

Yes. It's not like that anymore. In order to enroll, you have to present proof of insurance. More and more institutions have health insurance plans students can enroll in, but...you still have to pay. It's not free health care included in any kind of student fees at all.

I think that a lot of institutions what happens is, you end up being automatically enrolled in the school's student health insurance plan unless you get a waiver which is usually satisfied by proof of your own private insurance.

[Izulde]

The one piece of good news is that if you're covered under your parents' insurance, you can continue being covered until you're 26 I think it is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

About a million or so students were still covered under insurance plans offered by schools going into 2012, but thanks to ObamaCare, most of those seem to be going away as well. (Note that this article was written pre-election)
Healthcare Law Mandates Major Changes to College Student Plans - US News and World Report

[Young Drachma]

A mod needs to split the last 60 or so posts into their own thread before this thing goes even more off the rails.

[Subby]

I hate these superthreads. Maybe they wouldn't be necessary if we had better forum organization.

AND MODDING.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

I hate these superthreads. Maybe they wouldn't be necessary if we had better forum organization.

AND MODDING.

If you want to get their attention you have to report some off-topic posts. And then stand back

[molson]

To get back to basketball though, I'm pretty amazed by Syracuse's run in that they're in the final four despite being pretty terrible on offense in three straight games. On the one hand, that doesn't inspire confidence going forward from here, but on the other, obviously the defense is on fire and they they haven't even played "OK" offense since round 1. James Southerland is still capable of 3-point barrages, and MCW has made the offense go against good competition (including Louisville), but they haven't even needed that yet in the tournament.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Boosters would be more than happy to pay every cent for the players who have value. They do anyway, except the more honest kids lose out, and everyone else has to hide their money so everyone can pretend these are student athletes. Edit: maybe if that part of it was more transparent, we'd see some of the broader changes you guys are talking about, if the fake cloak of "student athletes" at the biggest programs went away.

That would happen at maybe three dozen schools. A lot of other schools would compete by charging students more and subsidizing the athletic programs to an even greater degree.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That would happen at maybe three dozen schools. A lot of other schools would compete by charging students more and subsidizing the athletic programs to an even greater degree.

This, essentially.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

It's just not accurate. It might be creative accounting that makes it seem as though they're cutting instruction to pay for athletics, but it's just not actually true. No more than it's true that they're cutting revenue-losing programs to pay another professor salary or the President's salary.

With subsidies from students at most schools, coupled with all of the other kickbacks, there's enough money flowing to pay expenses. It's like everything else in higher ed, though -- the arms race to keep up with peer institutions -- is what drives poor schools to want to compete with the billion dollar endowment programs or the ones with huge deep pocketed boosters.

None of these arguments I've seen against paying players are especially compelling. The bottom line is, how is it fair that you EVERY PERSON connected with college sports is receiving some kind of financial remuneration and the only ones who can't receive extra benefits are the players themselves.

It just makes no sense. If it's good enough for the dude in the pep band, the kid who is student manager or the goofball Director of Basketball Operations graduate student making $20k a year for free graduate tuition and no health insurance, why not the players?

The stipends are a pittance relative to their value and enables top coaches to make NBA money on the backs of guys who'll never get that.

The logistics aren't a good enough reason to say "this is untenable." If it means conferences like the Big Ten choose to drop down to D3, I'm perfectly fine with this. I prefer that over a system where everyone just turns a blind eye and says "oh, but they get a free education that's refundable every year based on the whim of the coach."

It'd be fine if the scholarships were conditional based on a particular GPA requirement, but right now all of the power is in the hands of everyone but the most vulnerable.

I don't think they are directly cutting instruction to pay for athletics, but it is undeniable that all but a handful of D1 schools have their athletic program partially subsidized by the school's general fund and many state schools are cutting instruction due to state funding reductions.

Again, I'm all for kids getting paid, but the money has to come from somewhere and the only realistic option is increased tuition/fees. Athlete's pay shouldn't come from students that are already burdened with excessive student loan debt.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That would happen at maybe three dozen schools. A lot of other schools would compete by charging students more and subsidizing the athletic programs to an even greater degree.

How is that different than spending more on coaches or facilities to compete? Edit: We're OK with a mediocre coach getting millions in LA but not players making $2,000 a semester?