PDA

View Full Version : Should college hockey players receive a piece of the corporate pie?



HarleyMC
11-27-2009, 02:11 AM
Should college athletes receive a piece of the revenue generating commercialization of college sports? Would it help college athletes stay in school longer? Would there be an ensuing invasion of corporate warmongering if the NCAA relinquishes its amateur and not for profit status? Would it destroy the spirit of college sports? Lots of questions surrounding this issue, what do you think?

Revenue received from television contracts and sponsorship agreements, retail clothing and attire sales, ticket sales have contributed to the commercialization of college sports and aligned it with the corporate marketplace. Colleges and universities across the country make millions of dollars as a direct result of star players and sports teams and enhance an institutions local, regional and national profile. Coaches salaries are in the millions in some sports.

The disparity between the millions of dollars of generated revenue in college sports and the fact that a "full ride" athletic scholarship does not cover all costs associated with attending college has been argued as reasons why students deserve a "cut". Student-athletes can't work and a full ride is often not sufficient to sustain all costs incurred as a student.

College Students' Perceptions On The Payment Of Intercollegiate Student-Athletes - Statistical Data Included (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_2_35/ai_77399630/?tag=content;col1)

A proponents look at the issue - Pay Them!:

******** width="425" height="344">******* name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kXjH_bsTkl4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param>******* name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>******* name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param>******* src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kXjH_bsTkl4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

TonyTheTiger20
11-27-2009, 02:17 AM
Absolutely not. I may disagree with the NCAA on a lot of things, but that's one of the few they have absolutely right.

Also, I believe 'full rides' do cover all costs. I'm not an athlete, but when BC determines my financial aid, they figure how much it will cost to be in school for a year, including x amount for tuition, β for fees, δ for books, and Θ for how much a normal student has for spending money. They use that number, x+β+δ+Θ, subtract how much I'm able to pay from that, and then the result is how much aid I get.

For example, I have a twin sister who is also in college and a single mother who's an elementary school teacher. I got so much financial aid last year that I got a check from Boston College. Unless I'm much mistaken, what I described above is how it works for athletic schollies as well.

LynahFan
11-27-2009, 06:04 AM
Definitely not. I presume that the model would be only to pay players in the few sports that actually generate revenue: football, basketball, and perhaps at a very few select schools, baseball and hockey. Specifically in those 4 sports, the student athletes not only receive the full scholarship, but they are also getting a 4-year audition for a professional career in those sports. That has significant value above and beyond the financial value of the scholarship.

I also disagree with the assertion that "student athletes can't work." Of course they can - they just have to be paid for actual work that they do, and not just for showing up at Bubba Booster's car dealership occasionally.

FlagDUDE08
11-27-2009, 07:47 AM
The students are there to receive an education. If they wanted to get paid for playing sports, then I suggest they join professional leagues. With hockey, it's major juniors. With basketball and soccer, you can play in Europe. With football and baseball, I'm sure there are semi-pro leagues.

College sports is a side venture for these students. They also receive first class educations, which is the most important thing for when they leave the school, and after any type of professional career in the sport. As for sports betting, if gambling associations wish to offer it, so be it. Commercialism, it's a way for the school to get money to support the funding for these sports.

As for not working, some of the student athletes are offered athletic scholarships to attend the school. I'm sure that they're not dumb, either, and have saved up well for going to college. Not to mention, what about summer jobs?

toehimp
11-27-2009, 09:22 AM
I agree with the other posters. If I want to watch players who get a paycheck, Ill just watch the NHL or one of the Junior leagues. The education that these players receive is far more valuable that whatever stipend that revenue sharing or other monetary incentives would be. Those that choose not to attack the academics and take that advantage when they have the chance do so at their own risk.

stev

Goon
11-27-2009, 09:57 AM
Should college athletes receive a piece of the revenue generating commercialization of college sports? Would it help college athletes stay in school longer? Would there be an ensuing invasion of corporate warmongering if the NCAA relinquishes its amateur and not for profit status? Would it destroy the spirit of college sports? Lots of questions surrounding this issue, what do you think?


A

I think the College Hockey players already recieve much for playing for their schools at least in the WCHA they do. I know UND hockey players get a lot of notice from the professional ranks as well as being part of a great hockey program. They get to play in a facility that might be better than the one they will play in after they have left college hockey for the professional ranks. I think it would be counter productive they are amateur hockey players, not professionals.

Spydey629
11-27-2009, 10:24 AM
I have always been a proponent of student-athletes getting some kind of stipend payment while they are in school -- Assuming they don't already receive something over and above the cost of tuition, books, and room & board in their scholarship.

I'm not saying PAY the athletes, but I don't see a problem with student-athletes receiving some small stipend to take a date to a movie or grab a slice at the corner pizza shop.

Something like $100-150/week or $500/month. I think that is a relatively decent amount of spending cash to have for a college student. I know I was able to do it, working one one weekend a month as a member of the Army Reserves (plus the GI Bill).

Now, if they are already getting something like this, well... then nevermind. ;)

Puck Swami
11-27-2009, 10:30 AM
Make no mistake -- D-I college players DO get paid, just not in cash.

The sticker price of a year at the University of Denver is about $50,000 (tuition, room, board, books and fees), so that's the "base salary" as a scholarship - an academic investment in the player that includes academic instruction and support, intellectual development and a great learning enviroment. That's $200K in direct monetary value over four years. And the value escalates over time with the status of the degree and the connections you make.

Then there is the "bonus" of the school's hockey investment in to that player -- first class coaching, ice time, equipment, 20+ games of TV exposure a year, medical and strength training, jet travel and benefits like the puck bunnies, the teammates that will be your friends for life, some relative BMOC status and the honor of weraing the Denver sweater. Add it all up and it is an 'experience' that many would consider priceless.

I think most D-I college players get a monetary value well in excess of the package most major junior players get, which makes the whole "major junior is pro hockey" argument kind of silly to me.

Patman
11-27-2009, 10:34 AM
These issues always come down to costs and competition. If you set a stipend value period you will lose teams/sports because of the additional costs that would burden a program. Then you'd have the issue of irregularity of services. I bet the SEC schools will want to set that bar as high as it will go. At that point it becomes even more of an arms race for talent.

Bottom line is you have to look at it as a trade off. Free tuition is really nothing to laugh at. It might mean you aren't wearing the nicest stuff in the world if you don't have much but it'll remove a lot of burden off of yourself or your family.

The only time this comes up as a serious concern is when kids come from families with very little. Yes, its socially debilitating to be a BMOC when you don't have enough spending cash... but you know what, I don't think that kid driving the beat up 1995 Jetta is going to get much sympathy.

As to the schools making money. Yeah, we understand that issue... but the athletes know what they're taking on when they come to school. Most of them will enter the real world after their time in school and will have reaped both financial security and an education in one shot by and large.

In this era it is no small thing to leave school without loans. People secure the equivalent of a small mortgage just to be educated. I'd say that $500 a month* kicks in once they leave school... because that's the amount they won't be paying to a loan company.

*I don't know how much student loans cost... for that I'm lucky and that I owe my parents that debt of gratitude.

FlagDUDE08
11-27-2009, 10:48 AM
In this era it is no small thing to leave school without loans. People secure the equivalent of a small mortgage just to be educated. I'd say that $500 a month* kicks in once they leave school... because that's the amount they won't be paying to a loan company.

*I don't know how much student loans cost... for that I'm lucky and that I owe my parents that debt of gratitude.

It's dependent upon rate; term length is usually 10 years or so. The current generation of students (myself included) are very lucky to have an economy with low interest rates, even under 3% loan interest. But seeing as how many student athletes earn business or management degrees while at college, it will be VERY easy for them to earn the money to pay it all off.

Patman
11-27-2009, 10:52 AM
It's dependent upon rate; term length is usually 10 years or so. The current generation of students (myself included) are very lucky to have an economy with low interest rates, even under 3% loan interest. But seeing as how many student athletes earn business or management degrees while at college, it will be VERY easy for them to earn the money to pay it all off.

I'm just talking in general though... for those who say that "they aren't being paid"... well, just look at what it does and how much it gives. I'm sure I could pull up a calculator or two. I'm going based off of some guesses from when I was briefly looking at mortgage loan stuff.

Puck Swami
11-27-2009, 10:52 AM
Another thing to remember is while there are some revenue positive hockey programs out there in D-I that pay for themselves and add money to the school's coffers, most overall D-I overall athletic programs spend far more than they bring in each year to support many non-revenue sports. That's tolerated because of the larger value of the opportunities they provide to help the "360,000" student-athletes and the terrific value of entertainment for the campus and community, the media exposure for the school and building of a sense of loyalty and pride for alumni and fans. For example, Denver probably nets $3 or 4 million a year in hockey revenue on a $1 miilion hockey program, but spends $25 million a year on its athletic program overall.

If all D-I overall athletic programs were to make more money than they spend, perhaps it might be time to consider addtional cash for the athletes, but right now, there are only a handful of schools (mostly the very top BCS football schools) that generate more money than they spend on sports.

bueller
11-27-2009, 11:40 AM
Two questions:

1. I never received financial aid so I don't know how going from a scholarship to a payment would change the tax picture, if it would?

2. How much would insurance cost once athletes effectively become professionals by getting paid? In my experience most personal policies only cover amateur athletes.

FlagDUDE08
11-27-2009, 11:44 AM
1. I never received financial aid so I don't know how going from a scholarship to a payment would change the tax picture, if it would?


Tuition is tax deductible, though I'm not sure how much. Student loan interest (interest ONLY, no principal) is tax-deductible, up to $2500. A payment is better tax-wise, assuming the scholarship includes student loans.

startthebus
11-27-2009, 12:13 PM
College hockey brings in nothing compared to D1 Football and Basketball...

chase.ma
11-27-2009, 12:14 PM
Just wanted to point out a couple things that havent been mentioned. I agree that student athletes are compensated enough, although I may be an advocate for increasing the maximum number of allowable scholarships. Each school comes up with an annual student budget that they can compensate a full scholarship athlete for. I know some private schools break down their costs like this:

Tuition 30000
Room 12000
Food 4000
Books 1000
Personal 3000

Total 50000

In reality you can go to hypothetical school for probably around 40-42k a year. If you move off campus you may get cheaper housing. If you do not get a meal plan they will give you compensation up to the cost of the meal plan, and it is definitely cheaper cooking for yourself. And then the personal expenses cover things like computers and phones which most people have. I know student athletes at Northeastern have more money than they need, and I think that is very common around the country.

On the institutional side, very few schools turn a profit on their hockey program. Even in basketball and football you will see only the major teams making money. So you would end up running into a payment issue. If payment was by the school, you would be giving more of an advantage to a program like BU/BC over lesser programs who lose money like UML/PC/MC. And I would guess that if you entered into a revenue sharing agreement, that the many schools opporating in the red would equal out the few schools making money, and the players would be left with nothing anyway.

IrishHockeyFan
11-27-2009, 12:29 PM
One of the things to look at is how many people at a particular institution are getting seriously rich off the labor of the college athletes? Yes, the head football coaches and basketball coaches (and a few hockey coaches or a select few in some of the other sports) are making $$$ hand over fist. But the vast majority of those cashing a paycheck at Notre Dame and other similar colleges and universities who work in or for the athletic departments are doing the same thing most of us here are doing -- earning a living. The associate athletic director for compliance is not getting rich of of his or her labor or that of the student/athlete. I know it looks bad when Charlie Weis is pulling down $3 or $4 MM a year while perhaps one of his stud offensive linesmen cannot afford to treat his girlfriend to a pizza while they study for midterms, but is that really all that different from the experience of plenty of his fellow students?

I understand the sentiment of paying the athletes but they receive compensation in so many ways already noted in many of the posts. I think a better question overall may be are we using all of the $$$ generated by big time college athletics in the most useful way and not just isn't it time for the players to get paid?