OT: Kaminsky v. Dakich

[NJCat]

Maybe this belongs on the Rant board, because Dan Dakich and Frank the Tank are having a twitter rant together. Pretty funny stuff.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-got-into-another-twitter-argument/104494726/

 

[thewildcat2011]

Maybe this belongs on the Rant board, because Dan Dakich and Frank the Tank are having a twitter rant together. Pretty funny stuff.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-got-into-another-twitter-argument/104494726/

Dakich is a joke and every time he gets put in his place it's wonderful.

 

[NJCat]

Dakich is a joke and every time he gets put in his place it's wonderful.

Agree.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Dakich is a joke and every time he gets put in his place it's wonderful.

If you could buy Dakich for what he's worth and sell him for what he THINKS he's worth, you'd rake in Billions . . .

 

[FitzFan]

Ol' Dan Dick-itch sticking it where it don't belong.

 

[Hungry Jack]

"UR a fly on an elephant's ass"

I am going to use that the next time I have road rage.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

"UR a fly on an elephant's ass"

I am going to use that the next time I have road rage.

My old HS Coach, used to say "you are a pimple on a tough guys butt".

 

[cometclear]

Dakich should not be getting into arguments with kids like this, but he's absolutely correct on his point. The idea that these athletes are "exploited" by having their college tuitions paid for is preposterous. What is that phrase that the kids like to say? "First world problems?"

 

[thewildcat2011]

I completely agree. I know that if I was doing a job and being paid 100K and found out that market pay is like 500K, I would certainly not feel upset or exploited. After all, I am getting 100K.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

I completely agree. I know that if I was doing a job and being paid 100K and found out that market pay is like 500K, I would certainly not feel upset or exploited. After all, I am getting 100K.

Who says market pay is 500K?

 

[FitzFan]

Trying to find decent sources and do napkin math from my car, so take this with a grain of salt, but:

"This year, 68 teams got an invitation to play in the tournament. Each of those team’s conferences will get a piece of a $220 million pot of money. For each game a team plays, its conference gets a payout, spread over six years. For playing one game the team’s conference gets roughly $1.7 million. If a team makes it all the way to the final game, it can earn as many as five units, totaling $8.3 million. If a team makes the final game from the first-four bracket, it could earn a total of six units."

So $220 million/68 teams= ~$3,200,000 per team/15 players=~$216,000 per player. That's just for the lump sum the NCAA pays out to teams that play in the tournament. As the article states, for each game a team plays in the tournament, their conference earns an additional $1.7million. This does not include the remaining $680million in revenue that is paid out to remaining member institutions. Nor does it include the $19.6 billion (that's right, billion) in TV deals that the NCAA has signed with CBS to cover the tournament. AND THIS IS ALL JUST FOR THE TOURNAMENT!

Players also generate revenue for their schools through regular season ticket sales, merchandise sales, conference broadcasting deals, etc. Does this vary from school to school? Absolutely. Many schools in small conferences lose money on their basketball programs. But while I don't have the means to do the math right now, I'd say $500k is on the low end for how much a player brings to their school per season per player when looking at major conference schools.

Read more: How Much Does the NCAA Make off March Madness? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/article...oes-ncaa-make-march-madness.asp#ixzz4pejsum7f

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Trying to find decent sources and do napkin math from my car, so take this with a grain of salt, but:

"This year, 68 teams got an invitation to play in the tournament. Each of those team’s conferences will get a piece of a $220 million pot of money. For each game a team plays, its conference gets a payout, spread over six years. For playing one game the team’s conference gets roughly $1.7 million. If a team makes it all the way to the final game, it can earn as many as five units, totaling $8.3 million. If a team makes the final game from the first-four bracket, it could earn a total of six units."

So $220 million/68 teams= ~$3,200,000 per team/15 players=~$216,000 per player. That's just for the lump sum the NCAA pays out to teams that play in the tournament. As the article states, for each game a team plays in the tournament, their conference earns an additional $1.7million. This does not include the remaining $680million in revenue that is paid out to remaining member institutions. Nor does it include the $19.6 billion (that's right, billion) in TV deals that the NCAA has signed with CBS to cover the tournament. AND THIS IS ALL JUST FOR THE TOURNAMENT!

Players also generate revenue for their schools through regular season ticket sales, merchandise sales, conference broadcasting deals, etc. Does this vary from school to school? Absolutely. Many schools in small conferences lose money on their basketball programs. But while I don't have the means to do the math right now, I'd say $500k is on the low end for how much a player brings to their school per season per player when looking at major conference schools.

Read more: How Much Does the NCAA Make off March Madness? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/article...oes-ncaa-make-march-madness.asp#ixzz4pejsum7f

I understand the revenue made. But can't players go pro if they don't like getting only a free tuition to play college ball?

 

[thewildcat2011]

Trying to find decent sources and do napkin math from my car, so take this with a grain of salt, but:

"This year, 68 teams got an invitation to play in the tournament. Each of those team’s conferences will get a piece of a $220 million pot of money. For each game a team plays, its conference gets a payout, spread over six years. For playing one game the team’s conference gets roughly $1.7 million. If a team makes it all the way to the final game, it can earn as many as five units, totaling $8.3 million. If a team makes the final game from the first-four bracket, it could earn a total of six units."

So $220 million/68 teams= ~$3,200,000 per team/15 players=~$216,000 per player. That's just for the lump sum the NCAA pays out to teams that play in the tournament. As the article states, for each game a team plays in the tournament, their conference earns an additional $1.7million. This does not include the remaining $680million in revenue that is paid out to remaining member institutions. Nor does it include the $19.6 billion (that's right, billion) in TV deals that the NCAA has signed with CBS to cover the tournament. AND THIS IS ALL JUST FOR THE TOURNAMENT!

Players also generate revenue for their schools through regular season ticket sales, merchandise sales, conference broadcasting deals, etc. Does this vary from school to school? Absolutely. Many schools in small conferences lose money on their basketball programs. But while I don't have the means to do the math right now, I'd say $500k is on the low end for how much a player brings to their school per season per player when looking at major conference schools.

Read more: How Much Does the NCAA Make off March Madness? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/article...oes-ncaa-make-march-madness.asp#ixzz4pejsum7f

Obviously a very complicated issue. There are clearly schools and players that bring in almost no revenue or end up costing money overall. Professional leagues solve this issue with mandated revenue sharing (very capitalist amirite?). It's also thorny because there are whole entire sports at every school overall that lose money for the school (and I'm on record that these sports 100% should, and need to, exist).

I just generally take exception with the "you get something, therefore you don't deserve more" line of argument. I don't think college athletes are exactly an exploited class of labor the likes of factory workers at the turn of the century...they aren't unknowing or unwilling victims. BUT, I also don't think that at the P5 level the system is economically fair to the athletes.

 

[willycat]

I understand the revenue made. But can't players go pro if they don't like getting only a free tuition to play college ball?

How many players on this seasons NU squad could play pro? Wouldn't you really like to see the coaches get paid about what a schlorship is worth. After all that's what your advocating for the players, who spend hours in their "profession" and suffer the possible related life threatening consequences.

 

[FitzFan]

I understand the revenue made. But can't players go pro if they don't like getting only a free tuition to play college ball?

Maybe 5% of D1 college players are good enough to play professionally, either in the US or abroad. And the NBA has artificial barriers to entry in the form of age requirements that force high school players to play NCAA ball (to the benefit of both the NCAA and NBA). These players are forced to forfeit at least one year of pay to play in the NCAA for schools they have no business attending. For the players good enough to play in the NBA straight out of high school, the tuition they receive for their one year of play in college ball is absolutely meaningless.

The remaining 95% of players spend 4+ years working 40+ hours a week to earn a scholarship that varies in value from school to school. I know some folks on here bemoan that fact that these players complain about working the equivalent of a full time job to pay for their schooling (which is a full-time job in and of itself), but I knew students who were on a work-study plans who only worked 10 hours a week for a scholarship of a similar value. D1 athletes who devote ample time to their studies are some of the hardest working folks I know.

This leads to another issue: many of the players who spend 4 years playing college ball (ie they're not good enough to play professionally) wouldn't have been admitted to their schools without their athletic skills. (You see this all the time even at NU, where the average ACT of the admitted student is somewhere around a 33 and we admit basketball and football players with scores of 23) At schools like UNC, they'll admit players who apparently can't even read at a 4th grade level. Alabama admits students with ACTs in the single digits. These students, with the help of tutors and fake/easy classes, will receive a "degree" but will not have any skills necessary to compete for jobs once they graduate. Was the scholarship really worth it for these players? Was it worth the 40+ hour weeks, the possible physical damage to their bodies, and the lost income that could have been earned working a job that required only a high school degree? This is no fault of the players, but rather the fault of the universities. Why do they admit these players? Because their skills in their chosen sport will potentially generate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in revenue for the school. It's a cash grab by the schools and NCAA, plain and simple.

I know it's easy to say, "well hey, suck it up buttercup and go do something else if you don't like it," but these players work quite hard to generate an insane amount of revenue for the NCAA and their schools. They deserve a share of that revenue, in my opinion. As others have said, how we would actually work out a revenue sharing system is up for debate, but the current system takes advantage of players regardless of whether they're good enough to play professionally.

Also, I think the NBA and NFL are largely responsible for this system and deserve just as much share of the blame as the NCAA. Both leagues should create their own minor league/developmental systems, like the MLB, and both should eliminate the age restrictions that are currently in place.

 

[FitzFan]

Obviously a very complicated issue. There are clearly schools and players that bring in almost no revenue or end up costing money overall. Professional leagues solve this issue with mandated revenue sharing (very capitalist amirite?). It's also thorny because there are whole entire sports at every school overall that lose money for the school (and I'm on record that these sports 100% should, and need to, exist).

I just generally take exception with the "you get something, therefore you don't deserve more" line of argument. I don't think college athletes are exactly an exploited class of labor the likes of factory workers at the turn of the century...they aren't unknowing or unwilling victims. BUT, I also don't think that at the P5 level the system is economically fair to the athletes.

I agree. Definitely a complicated issue.

One big exception to your point in the second paragraph: at schools like Alabama, UNC, etc., you have officials admitting high school students with ridiculously low ACT/SAT scores (ie scores way below the student body average) so they can play basketball or football and generate revenue for the school. The school officials know these students have no business attending the school, but exploit their athletic prowess for financial gain. They'll be placed in fake/easy classes with private tutors or professors who will ensure they won't fail. And these "students" are compensated with a scholarship that is meaningless. They'll lack basic skills and will fail to secure employment, even if they receive a degree in basketweaving of whatever their program of study was. In cases like this, I think its fair to say the players are being taken advantage of in a big way.

 

[Windy City Cat Fan]

I understand the revenue made. But can't players go pro if they don't like getting only a free tuition to play college ball?

What's your definition of pro? They are essentially full time basketball or football players and not being paid. The best of the best will go on to the NBA or NFL, the rest are only good enough to make the NCAA and schools a ton of money.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

What's your definition of pro? They are essentially full time basketball or football players and not being paid. The best of the best will go on to the NBA or NFL, the rest are only good enough to make the NCAA and schools a ton of money.

So are lots of students of all kinds of professions at universities. Again, they're not being strong-armed to play sports. They choose to. If being payed to play is important to them
immediately, there's Europe or the D-League.

And what about the schools that don't make profit?

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

I agree. Definitely a complicated issue.

One big exception to your point in the second paragraph: at schools like Alabama, UNC, etc., you have officials admitting high school students with ridiculously low ACT/SAT scores (ie scores way below the student body average) so they can play basketball or football and generate revenue for the school. The school officials know these students have no business attending the school, but exploit their athletic prowess for financial gain. They'll be placed in fake/easy classes with private tutors or professors who will ensure they won't fail. And these "students" are compensated with a scholarship that is meaningless. They'll lack basic skills and will fail to secure employment, even if they receive a degree in basketweaving of whatever their program of study was. In cases like this, I think its fair to say the players are being taken advantage of in a big way.

So you're beef is with the schools that don't take the education of their students serious enough. Well...that certainly doesn't apply to all schools.

 

[FitzFan]

So you're beef is with the schools that don't take the education of their students serious enough. Well...that certainly doesn't apply to all schools.

Does it need to affect every school for it to be wrong? My issue in that post specifically relates to schools that accept academically inferior revenue-sport student-athletes to the university/college for financial gain. And I'd argue that 100% of power 5 schools are guilty of this to a certain extent. NU certainly is. It's not that the schools in question, "don't take the education of their students seriously enough." It's that they specifically admit underperforming revenue-sport student-athletes to increase the quality of their revenue sports teams in an effort to increase the revenue produced by those teams. Do some schools place their student athletes in artificial programs of study designed to ensure passing grades? Yes. Does this happen at NU? Hopefully not. That doesn't mean it's not an issue that needs to be addressed by changing the current system.

And, as I stated in the post you quoted, that is "one big exception." See my longer post earlier in the chain that more cohesively outlines multiple issues I see in the current system.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Does it need to affect every school for it to be wrong? My issue in that post specifically relates to schools that accept academically inferior revenue-sport student-athletes to the university/college for financial gain. And I'd argue that 100% of power 5 schools are guilty of this to a certain extent. NU certainly is. It's not that the schools in question, "don't take the education of their students seriously enough." It's that they specifically admit underperforming revenue-sport student-athletes to increase the quality of their revenue sports teams in an effort to increase the revenue produced by those teams. Do some schools place their student athletes in artificial programs of study designed to ensure passing grades? Yes. Does this happen at NU? Hopefully not. That doesn't mean it's not an issue that needs to be addressed by changing the current system.

And, as I stated in the post you quoted, that is "one big exception." See my longer post earlier in the chain that more cohesively outlines multiple issues I see in the current system.

I understand your points. I just feel there are other avenues to pursue if a kid doesn't want to play without getting paid. I sure wish I got paid a whole heck a lot more in my profession. Bottom line, these players aren't entitled to anything just because they "want" it. If they don't like the system, don't partake in it. It's completely voluntary.

 

[FitzFan]

I understand your points. I just feel there are other avenues to pursue if a kid doesn't want to play without getting paid. I sure wish I got paid a whole heck a lot more in my profession. Bottom line, these players aren't entitled to anything just because they "want" it. If they don't like the system, don't partake in it. It's completely voluntary.

Fair enough! I enjoy having civil discussions like this on these boards, even if we're no closer to agreeing on this topic than we were before we started . Cheers!

 

[PURPLECAT88]

Who says market pay is 500K?

Yeah, back in my day, it was just a Chevy Blazer. Must be inflation.