Started By
Message
re: APU - where do you stand?
Posted on 9/23/13 at 12:29 pm to Peter Buck
Posted on 9/23/13 at 12:29 pm to Peter Buck
Sounds like the same sort of stuff unions say when they want to negotiate more benefits or higher salaries. I hate unions, btw.
Yes, the kids have a choice to play or not to play. Many of these kids probably wouldn't even go to college if they didn't get a free ride playing sports, so their prospects at a better future are improved by the mere fact that they are getting a college education (of some sort) while they play. Those that stick it out and graduate have a bigger leg-up on life than if they didn't go to school at all.
I don't buy into the Communistic argument that the players should get a share of the financial proceeds made by the university and the athletic programs just because they are helping to make the programs money. The coaches make their money because they are employees of the universities, just like the janitors and the professors. Their wages are determined by market factors, like the other positions.
Student athletes aren't getting paid because the universities don't recruit players to fill paid positions on their staff. Athletics are extracurricular activities that students can participate in while they get an education. Also, as much as people love pointing out how much universities rake in on athletics programs, the sad truth is that most programs actually lose money.
Here's an article from Friday that states that UGA had a good year, financially:
So with all the millions we bring in, we (a very conservative-spending program) only made just over $2 million. That sounds like a lot, but that can get spent quickly at the university level. Also, when we talk about players getting paid proportionality to the money they bring in, suddenly you're talking about deficits across the board.
Yes, the kids have a choice to play or not to play. Many of these kids probably wouldn't even go to college if they didn't get a free ride playing sports, so their prospects at a better future are improved by the mere fact that they are getting a college education (of some sort) while they play. Those that stick it out and graduate have a bigger leg-up on life than if they didn't go to school at all.
I don't buy into the Communistic argument that the players should get a share of the financial proceeds made by the university and the athletic programs just because they are helping to make the programs money. The coaches make their money because they are employees of the universities, just like the janitors and the professors. Their wages are determined by market factors, like the other positions.
Student athletes aren't getting paid because the universities don't recruit players to fill paid positions on their staff. Athletics are extracurricular activities that students can participate in while they get an education. Also, as much as people love pointing out how much universities rake in on athletics programs, the sad truth is that most programs actually lose money.
Here's an article from Friday that states that UGA had a good year, financially:
quote:
Against the $98.9 million in revenues, the association had $86 million in operating expenses and about $9.6 million in non-operating expenses, mainly debt payments.
That left the association with a $2.2 million surplus to add to the association’s accumulated reserves.
So with all the millions we bring in, we (a very conservative-spending program) only made just over $2 million. That sounds like a lot, but that can get spent quickly at the university level. Also, when we talk about players getting paid proportionality to the money they bring in, suddenly you're talking about deficits across the board.
1
Posted on 9/23/13 at 12:47 pm to runningdog
I agree with you completely.
The schools that actually believed in the concept of "student-athletes" didn't sell their souls for big time athletic success. They are the Harvards, Yales, Princetons, military academies etc. They use to run the football world but then once profit motivation came in, they gracefully bowed out so as to not compromise their integrity.
You're supporting your side of the debate with the part in dispute itself.
The schools that actually believed in the concept of "student-athletes" didn't sell their souls for big time athletic success. They are the Harvards, Yales, Princetons, military academies etc. They use to run the football world but then once profit motivation came in, they gracefully bowed out so as to not compromise their integrity.
quote:
Student athletes aren't getting paid because the universities don't recruit players to fill paid positions on their staff. Athletics are extracurricular activities that students can participate in while they get an education.
You're supporting your side of the debate with the part in dispute itself.
This post was edited on 9/23/13 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 9/23/13 at 1:35 pm to Swoopin
Fu man chu, you need to understand the definition of Communism before you use it to make your point. Colleges operate under the core Communist principles... According to ones abilities and needs. That is why some qualify for Pell grants and some do not. That is why some qualify for other aid type packages and some do not. That is why some students get into UGA with a 3.1 GPA and some do not get in with a 4.0.
Your AD P&L statement does not bring up the fact that the football team is responsible for creating most of those monies, $72M and a high rate of profit, $52m, so it can support the other sports teams. How is that for Communism? You hate Communism... Right? Football does all the work and all the other sports get the money... Goddam Commies!
Your AD P&L statement does not bring up the fact that the football team is responsible for creating most of those monies, $72M and a high rate of profit, $52m, so it can support the other sports teams. How is that for Communism? You hate Communism... Right? Football does all the work and all the other sports get the money... Goddam Commies!
Posted on 9/23/13 at 1:50 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Football does all the work and all the other sports get the money...
To say nothing of the students that work on assorted professors' projects - projects which can bring in shitloads of money (mostly in the sciences, but some books can earn a good bit, too).
Posted on 9/23/13 at 1:56 pm to FaCubeItches
Does that disprove the fact that the football team is responsible for 80% of the ADs revenue?
Do the above professors seek out students with in home visits and work with the Regents to make sure they get in school even though they are not academically qualified? So they can do research?
Grad students get paid when they do the research or help teach classes. Can the NCAA allow grad students to play football and get paid to do it? No? I wonder why??????
Do the above professors seek out students with in home visits and work with the Regents to make sure they get in school even though they are not academically qualified? So they can do research?
Grad students get paid when they do the research or help teach classes. Can the NCAA allow grad students to play football and get paid to do it? No? I wonder why??????
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:09 pm to Swoopin
Athletics are an extracurricular activity for students. Those activities are just that: activities. They aren't jobs. They aren't paid. They aren't meant to be paid. Some of these activities benefit the universities monetarily and some don't. Whether they do or they don't, they are meant to benefit the students by improving the character and leadership skills as well as bolstering their resumes for when they graduate. They are also used to attract other future students who are interested in such activities at the university.
I'm stating that what they do is by its nature something that doesn't get compensated with money because it compensates those who participate in other ways. For student-athletes, especially, they receive all sorts of benefits that aren't available to other students. Their hard work on the gridiron results in more money for the NON-PROFIT university that gets poured back into the university to make life better for the student-athletes to attract more student-athletes, as well as other students.
I'm stating that what they do is by its nature something that doesn't get compensated with money because it compensates those who participate in other ways. For student-athletes, especially, they receive all sorts of benefits that aren't available to other students. Their hard work on the gridiron results in more money for the NON-PROFIT university that gets poured back into the university to make life better for the student-athletes to attract more student-athletes, as well as other students.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:29 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Does that disprove the fact that the football team is responsible for 80% of the ADs revenue?
That fact is as good an argument for disbanding the non-football sports as it is for paying football players. If they want to get paid, they need to be economically viable, and an awful lot of collegiate sports aren't.
Beyond that, it doesn't really matter - let them pay the players. It will destroy the system, shut down a lot of programs, and bankrupt more than a few of players. Then we can get back to student athletes and/or go with straight minor leagues.
quote:
Do the above professors seek out students with in home visits
Don't know about in-home visits, but science and math prodigies definitely get courted.
quote:
and work with the Regents to make sure they get in school even though they are not academically qualified?
I suppose they could, but why would they want to? Bringing in people who don't belong in college to do high-level academic research isn't exactly a productive strategy.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:39 pm to FaCubeItches
You are missing the point...
..but answer me this...and if you do not know the answer, just state that you are ignorant to the facts.
Why does the NCAA use the term "Student Athlete"?
If a college football player suffers damage to his neck and back, can he be compensated for current and future medical care? For damages?
If a student works as a police trainee and gets shot while on duty, will he be compensated for current and future medical care? Damages?
..but answer me this...and if you do not know the answer, just state that you are ignorant to the facts.
Why does the NCAA use the term "Student Athlete"?
If a college football player suffers damage to his neck and back, can he be compensated for current and future medical care? For damages?
If a student works as a police trainee and gets shot while on duty, will he be compensated for current and future medical care? Damages?
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:50 pm to DawgHolliday
You are wrong.
There is no evidence whatsoever that increasing minimum wages is inflationary.
Fast food workers should get paid more. Maybe not $15 an hour, but they should get paid more than they do now.
There is no evidence whatsoever that increasing minimum wages is inflationary.
Fast food workers should get paid more. Maybe not $15 an hour, but they should get paid more than they do now.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:52 pm to runningdog
I think players should get paid.
And I think they shouldn't even have to go to class.
And I think they shouldn't even have to go to class.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 3:56 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Why does the NCAA use the term "Student Athlete"?
Are you asking why in the legal sense, or why in the practical? It sounds wholesome and differentiates that they are not university employees.
quote:
If a college football player suffers damage to his neck and back, can he be compensated for current and future medical care? For damages?
If a student works as a police trainee and gets shot while on duty, will he be compensated for current and future medical care? Damages?
Leaving aside stuff like waivers and hold-harmless agreements, it's still a matter of apples and oranges. Getting shot is a both criminal matter and a tort. So yes, damages/victim compensation could/would be awarded. An injury to a player *could* fall into that category (damages have been awarded for illegal hits/acts outside the regular scope of the game), but generally football players consent to being battered [and being allowed to batter], so no liability. It could also maybe be negligence depending on *how* the injury occurred. I worked on a case where a college that was successfully sued by one of its baseball players for an injury, and liability turned on the manner in which the kid was injured.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 4:36 pm to Peter Buck
It's tough to say that universities operate under Communistic principles or Capitalistic principles because they tend to use both in different ways, but overall, the system tends to reward good performance and punish bad performance (kicking out those who don't maintain a certain GPA), and that is definitely not a Communistic approach.
Pell Grants are actually awarded by the Federal Government, so it's not exactly fair to throw those on the universities. The government frequently rewards bad behavior and punishes laziness and lack of production while punishing hard work and production, but that's a different discussion.
The universities take their profits from football and re-invest them back into the athletic department as a whole, but that's not Communistic, per se, because the different programs belong to the same university and are part of the same athletic program. If the money made by the UGA football program was used to fund the golf program for the University of Florida, then that'd be more akin to Communistic redistribution.
Instead, it's more appropriate to say that it's like a single business who makes most of its money from the sales team using profits to support the IT department, accounting, and marketing; all areas are part of and support the overall business/university, so they all benefit to some degree when the rest of the departments do well. It may be disproportionate where the football program is concerned, but they are still part of the university. The same can be said about the science departments at some of the Ivy League schools or non-athletic-focused universities.
So yeah... screw the Commies and don't pay players. They already benefit from their hard work.
Pell Grants are actually awarded by the Federal Government, so it's not exactly fair to throw those on the universities. The government frequently rewards bad behavior and punishes laziness and lack of production while punishing hard work and production, but that's a different discussion.
The universities take their profits from football and re-invest them back into the athletic department as a whole, but that's not Communistic, per se, because the different programs belong to the same university and are part of the same athletic program. If the money made by the UGA football program was used to fund the golf program for the University of Florida, then that'd be more akin to Communistic redistribution.
Instead, it's more appropriate to say that it's like a single business who makes most of its money from the sales team using profits to support the IT department, accounting, and marketing; all areas are part of and support the overall business/university, so they all benefit to some degree when the rest of the departments do well. It may be disproportionate where the football program is concerned, but they are still part of the university. The same can be said about the science departments at some of the Ivy League schools or non-athletic-focused universities.
So yeah... screw the Commies and don't pay players. They already benefit from their hard work.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 4:42 pm to samson'sseed
I'm always curious about what people like you would like fast food workers to get paid if the minimum wage is too low. I never thought that a fast food restaurant was capable of paying a living wage, which is why that work is usually done part-time by students.
There is a basic economic principle at work here: supply and demand. A lot of people don't really understand this, and those people think the minimum wage should be raised.
There is a basic economic principle at work here: supply and demand. A lot of people don't really understand this, and those people think the minimum wage should be raised.
This post was edited on 9/23/13 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 9/23/13 at 5:16 pm to FooManChoo
I think the bigger issue is that of anti-trust colusion. It is hard to say student--athletes are students and not employees when practices are mandatory, you can't transfer at will, you can't profit from your own efforts and the bosses are making millions with an incentive to win at all costs. GA argued and won an anti-trust case in the 80's. -- arguably why the NCAA hammered the school with regularity for a while.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 5:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I never thought that a fast food restaurant was capable of paying a living wage, which is why that work is usually done part-time by students.
They could pay a living wage for their low-level personnel, but to do so, they'd have to charge $15-20 per burger/taco, etc.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 5:46 pm to runningdog
Students and student-athletes both have conditions they have to meet to maintain their statuses with the university. That doesn't mean that you are an employee. A football player can quit the team at any time, but they do so at the risk of losing their scholarship and other benefits, and having to be a full-time student and pay their own way.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 5:51 pm to FaCubeItches
That's right. Those who argue for a minimum wage (or increase in it) have to be assuming that the businesses have an infinite supply of money and can pay their employees whatever they (the employees) deserve (subjective standard) without losing business or increasing prices. The businesses may or may not be able to absorb that extra cost without increasing prices, but in this economy especially, it is unlikely.
There's a reason why fast food restaurants pay minimum wage. The jobs don't require any specialized skills or knowledge or training. Just about anyone can do the job, so the pool of potential workers willing to take the low-paying jobs is huge. If Sally thinks she's worth more than minimum wage, Bobby is standing right behind her in line willing to take that wage for that job. If no one was willing to take that wage, the business would be forced to raise the wage in order to have employees.
Jobs that require more specialized skills pay more because the pool of qualified applicants is a lot smaller and so the business needs to offer more money in order to entice those people with the necessary skills and knowledge to work there rather than somewhere else.
It's simple economics: supply and demand.
There's a reason why fast food restaurants pay minimum wage. The jobs don't require any specialized skills or knowledge or training. Just about anyone can do the job, so the pool of potential workers willing to take the low-paying jobs is huge. If Sally thinks she's worth more than minimum wage, Bobby is standing right behind her in line willing to take that wage for that job. If no one was willing to take that wage, the business would be forced to raise the wage in order to have employees.
Jobs that require more specialized skills pay more because the pool of qualified applicants is a lot smaller and so the business needs to offer more money in order to entice those people with the necessary skills and knowledge to work there rather than somewhere else.
It's simple economics: supply and demand.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 6:41 pm to FooManChoo
In anti-trust litigation the law presumes that market outcomes are best for all. In the 1984 case the big colleges prevailed over the NCAA on this issue, as a result we have the big TV contracts, etc. One of the arguments the NCAA made was that the relief sought by the schools would lead to litigation because the players would demand compensation.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 7:00 pm to runningdog
OK.
Let's start a semi pro league and let all the kids who don't value the education and want to get paid forfeit their eligibility and give it their best shot.
Then we'll fill the UGA roster with student athletes who are good enough make the team but also want to go to UGA and value what they've been given. This would also be fair to all the other athletes in sports that don't generate revenue.
I'd still go watch UGA. And anyone that says they wouldn't because of the talent level or quality of play is lying because if that was the case none of us would watch anything but the NFL.
I think it would be refreshing to separate the NFL wannabe, signing day shenanigans, and "gotta get paid" "wut wut" bullshite from true student athletics anyway.
The semi pro league would go broke in a year.
Let's start a semi pro league and let all the kids who don't value the education and want to get paid forfeit their eligibility and give it their best shot.
Then we'll fill the UGA roster with student athletes who are good enough make the team but also want to go to UGA and value what they've been given. This would also be fair to all the other athletes in sports that don't generate revenue.
I'd still go watch UGA. And anyone that says they wouldn't because of the talent level or quality of play is lying because if that was the case none of us would watch anything but the NFL.
I think it would be refreshing to separate the NFL wannabe, signing day shenanigans, and "gotta get paid" "wut wut" bullshite from true student athletics anyway.
The semi pro league would go broke in a year.
Posted on 9/23/13 at 7:05 pm to samson'sseed
quote:
Fast food workers should get paid more. Maybe not $15 an hour, but they should get paid more than they do now.
Why? Based on what?
Page 2 of 6
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News