Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 22:13:04 GMT -5
I've made numerous posts about this but the days of the NCAA are numbered... And that was the case before Covid. To those who would say "let's get back to what the student athlete used to mean", I'd point out that Walter Byers, the man who created the term 'student athlete' acknowledged before he died that he invented the phrase in order to "insulate the colleges from having to provide long term disability payments to players injured while playing their sport and making money for their university and the NCAA". The same man, who was the first executive president of the NCAA, characterized amateur collegiate athletics thus: "Collegiate amateurism is not a moral issue; it is an economic camouflage for monopoly practice which operates an air-tight racket of supplying cheap athletic labor." When you understand the principles on which the NCAA is based, doesn't it make you question what you're fighting to save and for whom? Everyone talks about the gift of a collegiate scholarship, but those scholarship athletes would, in any other free market, be earning (in some cases significant amounts of) money for the disbursement of their skills. Those athletes, like Hayley Hodson or Torrey Van Winden, who sustain career ending injuries in the pursuit of amateur athletics, how'd amateurism work out for them? And before you say, "well they got a 'free' (overpriced) American education" I'd point out that they wanted, first and foremost to be professional athletes and were forced to go to college by a system that won't take a moments pause over the loss of their dreams. Sure, anyone can get hurt playing pro sports too, but at least you're getting to do what you want to do; play your sport at the highest level. Which brings us to the quality of athletes we produce. Due to the current model of collegiate athletics, which is a business for the schools and the governing bodies to, as Walter Byers put it, exploit "cheap athletic labor", we are more focused on participation than excellence. There are over 300 D1 volleyball schools and each year they graduate, on average, about 1000 players. How many of those players will go on to play pro? Play internationally? Further the cause of USA volleyball? And the few that will have spent 4 years between the ages of 18 and 22, an incredibly important period in the development of any athlete, doing what? Being a part time volleyball player while being forced to study some other discipline in order to remain 'eligible'. I was reminded of this subject a few days ago. We had a player, a 2019 All American working out in our gym and we were talking about school and I asked her about her choice of major. She said "Oh, I just asked the staff what was the easiest major to take and they said [her major] so I took it. I want to be a volleyball player, I don't care about [her major]". So before anyone starts extolling the virtues of a "free education" let's not forget the 'education' we're depriving these athletes of; a full time volleyball education. And what's the value of that? Why not ask 23 year old Tijana Boskovic, who was 19 when she led Serbia to an Olympic silver medal. Or 21 year old Paola Egonu. Or 21 year old Isabelle Haak. Or even 20 year old Hanna Hellvig who, after winning BW FOY last year at Hawaii, has parlayed her success into a professional volleyball contract and is embarking on her career, so that SHE might financially and professionally benefit from her talents, rather than the institution she represents! So what's the alternative? How about we do what every other major nation does, allow the kids that are talented enough, to join professional organizations at 18. Get them full-time, elite coaching and allow them to maximise their skills. The minute the NCAA folded we'd get a viable, competitive ~10 team indoor league comprised of our best and brightest players and the quality and exposure would attract the world's best and consequently improve the development and coaching our players receive, resulting in a more competitive and successful national team. Those not interested in (or capable of) pursuing a professional career can go to college, where, if they choose, they can play club sports... for fun! The schools can devote their resources to academics and stop trying to be wannabe pro sports franchises and Mark Emmert... Well he can... take up landscape painting! I'm sure he's saved enough of his annual salary of $3.5M to get some nice brushes! I didnt really want to quote this post due to length, but I am responding to it. First, I understand everything you are saying and I do not necessarily disagree with it. I especially agree with the parts about the NCAA and the powers that be having manipulated things to maintain their cheap labor pool for their sports business. Everything you say about many student athletes basically majoring in their sport is also true. I am skeptical of certain things, though. I would not be as optimistic about opportunities that may arise in the vacuum created by the end of college sports. In many sports there is no viable option to play professionally, and wont be. Take even the big kahuna, football, for instance. It actually is not the NCAA or P5 that is restricting athletes from playing professionally instead of going to college. The NFL is the one doing that. Ditto the NBA and requiring this 1-and-done rule. And, I do not know how viable an alternative to college football would be if colleges dropped varsity athletics, either by choice or force. Fandom is tied to the university. If my school (Wisconsin) dropped athletics but a professional league, maybe even sponsored by the NFL, utilized Camp Randall Stadium and even called the team Wisconsin, I wont care. I wouldnt watch. Same reason I dont watch the XFL when it tries to play, or arena football. The team being associated with the university is why I care. If it isnt, then it is just a substandard league that does not measure up to the NFL. I would love to see a viable indoor pro volleyball league in this country. I just dont see it being successful in the long term. You think a lot of Nebraska volleyball fans will be as passionate about a Nebraska-based pro team as they are the Cornhuskers? I dont. I did not grow up playing, do not coach, referee or anything like that. College volleyball was my entry point. Otherwise, I may have just ended up watching it every 4 years at the Olympics if I happened to be around with nothing else to do. If what you hope to see does materialize, then it would definitely be better for the best of the best. But, I think it would be an overall net negative in terms of fan support, opportunities to continue playing, and might well trickle down into club. Also, sorry that I missed apostrophes. That key does not work on the keyboard
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Aug 2, 2020 23:17:53 GMT -5
In 1984 it cost $5500 a year to go to UCLA and that included food and lodging. Now it is $16,343 for in state tuition (not including a myriad of extra fees they assess separately) for CA residents NOT including food and lodging, $46,097 for out of state, again w/o Food and lodging. So the actual cost of attending is estimated to be $55,000 plus/yr, more for out of state. So a student with a schollie (if they can get in all their classes w/in 4 years) will get a $220,000 plus undergrad education with no debt(keeping in mind current student loan rate is at 6.85% interest).
It is much, much more for USC or Stanford. Considering only 2% of all SAs actually make it to the pros, seems like a very good trade. UCLA netted only a million dollars in total from their sports programs after total expenditures.
IMO, there is not any undergrad degree that is worth $220,00 plus, but if you are lucky and talented enough to get one, you are already receiving just compensation. Of course, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 2, 2020 23:30:16 GMT -5
Clearly plenty of these athletes' labor has value beyond the cost of their scholarship and benefits. And definitely more than just the handful who turn pro.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 23:33:51 GMT -5
In 1984 it cost $5500 a year to go to UCLA and that included food and lodging. Now it is $16,343 for in state tuition (not including a myriad of extra fees they assess separately) for CA residents NOT including food and lodging, $46,097 for out of state, again w/o Food and lodging. So the actual cost of attending is estimated to be $55,000 plus/yr, more for out of state. So a student with a schollie (if they can get in all their classes w/in 4 years) will get a $220,000 plus undergrad education with no debt(keeping in mind current student loan rate is at 6.85% interest). It is much, much more for USC or Stanford. Considering only 2% of all SAs actually make it to the pros, seems like a very good trade. UCLA netted only a million dollars in total from their sports programs after total expenditures. IMO, there is not any undergrad degree that is worth $220,00 plus, but if you are lucky and talented enough to get one, you are already receiving just compensation. Of course, I could be wrong. But you get why that's like you getting your salary converted into coupons for a store you don't want to shop at, right? Many of the players who want to play pro ball would go play pro out of high school (like they do in every other major sporting nation) if there was any path to do that in this country. But we don't permit that because we support a system which turns their talent into "cheap athletic labor" - again, that's from the guy who created the system. Also the "just compensation" argument is a bit difficult to make right after you state (rightly in my opinion) that the degree is overpriced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 23:46:03 GMT -5
In 1984 it cost $5500 a year to go to UCLA and that included food and lodging. Now it is $16,343 for in state tuition (not including a myriad of extra fees they assess separately) for CA residents NOT including food and lodging, $46,097 for out of state, again w/o Food and lodging. So the actual cost of attending is estimated to be $55,000 plus/yr, more for out of state. So a student with a schollie (if they can get in all their classes w/in 4 years) will get a $220,000 plus undergrad education with no debt(keeping in mind current student loan rate is at 6.85% interest). It is much, much more for USC or Stanford. Considering only 2% of all SAs actually make it to the pros, seems like a very good trade. UCLA netted only a million dollars in total from their sports programs after total expenditures. IMO, there is not any undergrad degree that is worth $220,00 plus, but if you are lucky and talented enough to get one, you are already receiving just compensation. Of course, I could be wrong. Just because someone charges $200,000 for a service does not mean you are receiving $200,000 of service. If it was about 'they get an education'--then why are they discouraged from certain classes or majors? Why are they required to spend most of their time on a sport? What exactly do the big schools do that makes them students first? If you are going to say they are getting a $200,000 education--then provide that. Make that education possible. Of course, that's hard to do with a football schedule that now goes a month longer than it did a generation ago and two months longer than in the 60s. Oh well, rah state.
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Aug 2, 2020 23:55:01 GMT -5
In 1984 it cost $5500 a year to go to UCLA and that included food and lodging. Now it is $16,343 for in state tuition (not including a myriad of extra fees they assess separately) for CA residents NOT including food and lodging, $46,097 for out of state, again w/o Food and lodging. So the actual cost of attending is estimated to be $55,000 plus/yr, more for out of state. So a student with a schollie (if they can get in all their classes w/in 4 years) will get a $220,000 plus undergrad education with no debt(keeping in mind current student loan rate is at 6.85% interest). It is much, much more for USC or Stanford. Considering only 2% of all SAs actually make it to the pros, seems like a very good trade. UCLA netted only a million dollars in total from their sports programs after total expenditures. IMO, there is not any undergrad degree that is worth $220,00 plus, but if you are lucky and talented enough to get one, you are already receiving just compensation. Of course, I could be wrong. But you get why that's like you getting your salary converted into coupons for a store you don't want to shop at, right? Many of the players who want to play pro ball would go play pro out of high school (like they do in every other major sporting nation) if there was any path to do that in this country. But we don't permit that because we support a system which turns their talent into "cheap athletic labor" - again, that's from the guy who created the system. Also the "just compensation" argument is a bit difficult to make right after you state (rightly in my opinion) that the degree is overpriced. I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 0:03:45 GMT -5
But you get why that's like you getting your salary converted into coupons for a store you don't want to shop at, right? Many of the players who want to play pro ball would go play pro out of high school (like they do in every other major sporting nation) if there was any path to do that in this country. But we don't permit that because we support a system which turns their talent into "cheap athletic labor" - again, that's from the guy who created the system. Also the "just compensation" argument is a bit difficult to make right after you state (rightly in my opinion) that the degree is overpriced. I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
Virtually every elite foreign volleyball player. And the way it works is their pro teams have academies, which develop players throughout high school, so they're ready to turn pro at the same time as our best athletes are taking 'physics for poets' or learning to be a vet. Again, it is only "money saved" if you want to get a degree. 21 year old Paola Egonu makes 6 figures a season playing pro volley. If she was American, she's still be in college. Surely you'd agree her finances are greatly benefited by NOT being born here?
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Aug 3, 2020 0:44:45 GMT -5
I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
Virtually every elite foreign volleyball player. And the way it works is their pro teams have academies, which develop players throughout high school, so they're ready to turn pro at the same time as our best athletes are taking 'physics for poets' or learning to be a vet. Again, it is only "money saved" if you want to get a degree. 21 year old Paola Egonu makes 6 figures a season playing pro volley. If she was American, she's still be in college. Surely you'd agree her finances are greatly benefited by NOT being born here? Again, it is only "money saved" if you want to get a degree.
Absolutely agree. I just constantly hear about how everyone has to go to college, so I "was" assuming that to be the goal. However, given that 68% of Americans do NOT have degrees, I should have considered that as a factor in regards to a person that might otherwise NOT go to college.
I do not really follow HS/College Football, but one of my colleagues was married to the HS Football coach of a program here that is elite. I do remember several years back they had a player that was one of the top recruits in the nation, but he ended up not getting a scholarship because his grades were not good enough. It was heartbreaking, great kid. Anecdotal, but supports your point =)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 3, 2020 0:48:24 GMT -5
Playing college athletics is not a right. Its a gift that many would be happy to receive. College athletics themselves are not a right. They are a (sometimes) lucrative side business and incredible advertisement opportunity for colleges. It's an opportunity that many private companies would be happy to receive.
|
|
|
Post by rvdadvb on Aug 3, 2020 7:12:56 GMT -5
All this mess is why the NAIA is becoming a more and more popular choice each year with athletes. I've recently seen a number of athletes with D1 offers choose to attend NAIA schools. Scholarships without the shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Aug 3, 2020 7:29:07 GMT -5
All this mess is why the NAIA is becoming a more and more popular choice each year with athletes. I've recently seen a number of athletes with D1 offers choose to attend NAIA schools. Scholarships without the shenanigans. Most NAIA schools are religious affiliated schools that some players can relate to and trust rather than only trusting the staff or current players. But, not all schools require that their staff and players follow the religious beliefs of that school either.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Aug 3, 2020 7:34:30 GMT -5
Clearly plenty of these athletes' labor has value beyond the cost of their scholarship and benefits. And definitely more than just the handful who turn pro. How would you assign revenue sharing in a program that loses money?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 7:51:20 GMT -5
In 1984 it cost $5500 a year to go to UCLA and that included food and lodging. Now it is $16,343 for in state tuition (not including a myriad of extra fees they assess separately) for CA residents NOT including food and lodging, $46,097 for out of state, again w/o Food and lodging. So the actual cost of attending is estimated to be $55,000 plus/yr, more for out of state. So a student with a schollie (if they can get in all their classes w/in 4 years) will get a $220,000 plus undergrad education with no debt(keeping in mind current student loan rate is at 6.85% interest). It is much, much more for USC or Stanford. Considering only 2% of all SAs actually make it to the pros, seems like a very good trade. UCLA netted only a million dollars in total from their sports programs after total expenditures. IMO, there is not any undergrad degree that is worth $220,00 plus, but if you are lucky and talented enough to get one, you are already receiving just compensation. Of course, I could be wrong. The "sticker price" for many/most colleges is not what most students it's pay. One of the reasons the loss of tuition from foreign students would be so problematic for many colleges/universities is that not only do they typically pay at least sticker price, in many cases they pay a premium. So I don't know what the real value is for an athletic scholarship -- but it's almost certainly not the sticker price.
|
|
|
Post by northwoods on Aug 3, 2020 8:15:49 GMT -5
Setting football aside there are definitely pro options for most NCAA athletes. The NBA G League began offering contracts to top HS players, bypassing the 1 and done system. Maybe 3-5 players total (pre-pandemic) were offered that route at about $125k per year. Golf & tennis will let anyone turn pro and earn based on your results. I guess volleyball & soccer players could go to Europe if any are good enough.
The problem is that outside a rare few, NCAA athletes aren’t good enough at their sport to make $ in the marketplace. NFL is so confident of that They don’t want to even talk to them for 3 years. I don’t begrudge players using whatever leverage they have to get more, but if their only leverage is “I’m not playing unless” then I’m afraid the likely response is “ok, next man up!” (What could be more footbally?)
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 3, 2020 8:17:12 GMT -5
I am going to admit, right up front, that I am not up to date on current pro sports, but I can only remember Kobe (and Wilt Chamberlain*) playing right out of highschool. What year did the guy state that, Like I mentioned it was only a $22,000 total degree in 84, that is pretty cheap =)
It is over priced, but that is what it costs without a scholarship, so relative to non-scholarshpipped students (which is the majority) it is actual money saved. Just like a 1200sq/ft 2 bedroom home on a 6000sq/ft lot is 2.4 million in West LA.
Caveat; UCLA was still relatively expensive in 1984.
FYI, Wilt was at Kansas for 3 years. He only left 1 year early, and played for the Globetrotters that year, not the NBA. His college coach retired before his soph year (freshmen were not eligible), and by his junior year he was constantly triple teamed, teams would stall for most of games (pre shot clock) and any joy was sucked out of the college game for him, so he left when given the opportunity.
|
|