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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But the view from his office in the Taj Fitz should be worth something. Imagine if that were commercial office space, how much would that go 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 football programs working in the red. The millions upon millions uoon millions going into facilities, the facility arms race it's called, for facilities expressly for these athletes.
Nope. A 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
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.
Wonder what Jim Delaney's office looks like?when the time comes to replace Jim (whether through retirement or him moving on to bigger things).
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. The millions upon millions uoon millions going into facilities, the facility arms race it's called, for facilities expressly for these athletes. Or 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
This will never happen, but I think some kind of profit-sharing system for NCAA athletes in revenue-generating programs could make sense.
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."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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Then add to this the problems created as there becomes a financial bidding war for recruits,