in AD pay. I think NU should bump Dr. Jim $41,000 to pass dOSU.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...g-athlete-pay-as-their-own-salaries-skyrocket
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...g-athlete-pay-as-their-own-salaries-skyrocket
NU 4th....
- Thread starter NJCat
- Start date
IMO he's worth every cent. Great fund raiser and hasn't made a bad coaching hire. Athletes doing well academically and for the most part stay out of trouble. Not much more you could ask for.
I love seeing that our guy is at the top 5 of this. Other than that, this article is exactly the type of stupidity about paying athletes I talked about on another thread. Never once does he mention the number of athletic programs working in the red, nor the millions upon millions upon millions going into facilities, the facility arms race it's called, for facilities expressly for these athletes. Nor does he touch upon that it's the money football can bring in that makes funding non revenue sports at schools even feasible. How much do golf and soccer bring in? Is your plan to pay them too? With what exactly?
Nope. A football player is worth more than an AD to the fans bringing in this money, so THEY should get their share of these salaries, not these men running these programs. Just idiotic.
A few points he missed.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.com/articles/13697753/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.amp
Nope. A football player is worth more than an AD to the fans bringing in this money, so THEY should get their share of these salaries, not these men running these programs. Just idiotic.
A few points he missed.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.com/articles/13697753/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.amp
Last edited:
I agree 100%. I was just pointing out that in addition to the being the 4th highest paid AD in the country - which he deserves - I don't think any AD will have a better office, perhaps in the entire country, when the Taj Fitz is completed. I'm happy for him, and I think it'll be a long term competitive advantage for NU when the time comes to replace Jim (whether through retirement or him moving on to bigger things).
This will never happen, but I think some kind of profit-sharing system for NCAA athletes in revenue-generating programs could make sense.
The problem with profit sharing is that the profits are unequal even among Power 5 conferences. Somehow they need a mechanism to pay revenue generating athletes a fair and equal amount. Cannot have an OSU player paid 10x what a Rutgers player makes. No clue how to do this.
Profit sharing?!? Guys, the point of the article is that there largely are few net profits among college athletic programs. They go back into facilities, coaches salaries, and funding for NON REVENUE SPORTS. That is why of 125+ Division I football schools, as of this article, only 20 have athletic departments with any profits AT ALL. Over 100 FBS schools are already losing money. You don't think mandating schools pay their athletes in football would tax these programs to the point where they say "we're out"?
Then add to this the inequity of paying only athletes in revenue generating sports and not the majority of athletes at each school who aren't playing football or basketball? Do those kids work any less hard? Why should they get less? Because as a youth they weren't wise enough to pick a sport with better television deals?
Then add to this the problems created as there becomes a financial bidding war for recruits, and it's the Wild Wild West as those 20 programs who are making money outbid the 100 schools for every top recruit, and you start seeing payroll vs win rankings like you do for MLB baseball. At least in baseball, the market disparity of franchises is hidden in the length of the season and the relatively small statistical percentage differences between Hall of Fame players and lifetime AAA players. In football, the disparity would be immediately and significantly pronounced.
But 'pay the players' arguments by and large gloss over all of this. They simply fixate on the head coach making millions and the players eating ramen noodles, and leave it at that. "Not fair. Players should be paid."
They are. In many ways. And ironically, that payment system is dispersed among all of a school's athletes in different ways. "Pay the athlete" proponents rally for 'fairness' while completely missing the point that the system is designed to make it fair for all athletes in college sports, as opposed to only those who bring in the most money.
Then add to this the inequity of paying only athletes in revenue generating sports and not the majority of athletes at each school who aren't playing football or basketball? Do those kids work any less hard? Why should they get less? Because as a youth they weren't wise enough to pick a sport with better television deals?
Then add to this the problems created as there becomes a financial bidding war for recruits, and it's the Wild Wild West as those 20 programs who are making money outbid the 100 schools for every top recruit, and you start seeing payroll vs win rankings like you do for MLB baseball. At least in baseball, the market disparity of franchises is hidden in the length of the season and the relatively small statistical percentage differences between Hall of Fame players and lifetime AAA players. In football, the disparity would be immediately and significantly pronounced.
But 'pay the players' arguments by and large gloss over all of this. They simply fixate on the head coach making millions and the players eating ramen noodles, and leave it at that. "Not fair. Players should be paid."
They are. In many ways. And ironically, that payment system is dispersed among all of a school's athletes in different ways. "Pay the athlete" proponents rally for 'fairness' while completely missing the point that the system is designed to make it fair for all athletes in college sports, as opposed to only those who bring in the most money.
Last edited:
Fitzphile: Playing devil's advocate here: Why can't you have an OSU player paid 10x more than a Rutgers player? If that is their relative value. Of course, one answer is "competitive balance." But, competitive balance and soft/hard salary caps may have reasonable merit where there is a true negotiation between labor and capital. None exists here. Further, if the NCAA cared about competitive balance, it would mandate identical (or near-identical) facilities, coaching salaries and would create a "draft" for high school talent. Instead, the fears about paying players have nothing to do with "competitive balance" and are all about "not paying labor for the value of their work."
Finally, I recognize that Universities paying players is fraught with all sorts of problems. However, I think it is unconscionable that the NCAA forbids me from slapping a $100 bill in Justin Jackson's hand after a great game if I am so inclined...and penalizes an athlete a year on the sideline if they choose to transfer schools. The system we have all grown up under is creaking under its own weight. Beware of a collapse sometime soon.
You make good points. The issue to me is, without the Rutgers stiffs who would OSU play? They need someone on the other side of the ball, and I think it only fair to compensate those guys the same way as you compensate the OSU players. Same logic applies to paying the scholarship punter the same amount as the scholarship QB.
I like giving stipends for living expenses beyond scholarship benefits but "pay for play" for college athletes is just plain unworkable for many reasons already stated here.
Guess it's ok to continue paying coaches and administrators millions, in your world, right? The players deserve to be paid and not just be given a $100 stipend and please don't start with they are already getting a paid for education. You can just take a look at how that works at Ohio St., Minnesota, Cincinnati, No. Carolina, Baylor and just about all of the SEC, except Vandy.
NCAA rules allow a "cost of living" stipend, usually on the order of three or four grand. There are also plenty of ways to "maximize" the room and board checks, such as living with a bunch of other guys so that your actual costs are much lower than the stipend.
It's not a ton, but it's not $100.
Catreporter: Of course you are correct that it is unworkable given the current dynamics. But, do note, I am less focused on "pay for play" related to Universities paying students as much as I am thinking about restrictions on earnings from outside sources and restrictions on student-athletes within the confines of the NCAA rule book.
The fundamental question is: Should the rules be established for the good of the system itself or for the fairness of individuals in the system? The college system has always been fraught with a mismatch between the market value of certain individuals, consumers' willingness to pay talent directly and strained concepts of amateurism and academics. Just my opinion.
Well GCG, his was the classic uninformed rant, no different than that of the author of the article linked at the top of the thread. Ignore the facts, ignore the points made already regarding the myriad of problems caused with his position, and sprinkle in unsubstantiated assumptions, of which he knows nothing, citing how he believes it's done elsewhere. You gave it more time and credit than it deserved.
Last edited:
