Hayes thoughts on pay for play

[Sagamore]

https://deadspin.com/nigel-hayes-has-some-pretty-great-ideas-about-how-to-fi-1825920480?src=rss

Wow, can you imagine the landscape of cbb and cfb if this were permitted?

 

[mrflynn03]

I didnt dislike the idea about impermissible benefits.  But he lost me when he injected racism into his argument. 

[IU Scott]

Like I have said many times I don't think the player is what brings in the money into college sports it is the name on the front of the jersey.  Players come and go but the one constant is the name on the front of the jersey.  I just wouldn't change a rule that really effects less than 1% of all the players in college sports.  Just look at the last two final fours where none of the top 10 one and done players even made the final four.  Even without them the stadium was sold out and millions of people still watched.  Why? because people care for the university and not the players names or rankings.

[BobSaccamanno]

I don't think there has been a single thing that has done more for race relations than sports.  When you see tons of kids wearing African-American player jerseys, that tells you a lot.  I was not around 100 years ago, but I doubt you'd have such a color blind thing as frequently.   Sports is the ultimate even playing field.

From a race relations standpoint, there is always more that can be done for sure, but I'd take the position that this is a major stretch to say that the NCAA or the schools do not want black kids to get money and lift them up as he says.  It's frankly an offensive thing to say, and to me beyond ridiculous.  If he has a point on the original message, he undercuts by falsely making a link that isn't there.

I am in favor of athletes getting more compensation but the notion that its based on race hurts his presentation.  

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Like I have said many times I don't think the player is what brings in the money into college sports it is the name on the front of the jersey.  Players come and go but the one constant is the name on the front of the jersey.  I just wouldn't change a rule that really effects less than 1% of all the players in college sports.  Just look at the last two final fours where none of the top 10 one and done players even made the final four.  Even without them the stadium was sold out and millions of people still watched.  Why? because people care for the university and not the players names or rankings.

This is a point I agree with as it pertains to college. I mean wasn’t IU still something like top 10 in attendance Crean’s first three years when we had walk-on’s and baseball players on the team?  

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

35 minutes ago, BGleas said:

This is a point I agree with as it pertains to college. I mean wasn’t IU still something like top 10 in attendance Crean’s first three years when we had walk-on’s and baseball players on the team?  

The empty balconies in Assembly Hall this year tell a different story.

[CapnRon]

Wasn't Hayes paid anyway with excessive amounts of free throws?  Can we get an opinion from an NBA guy who at least is good at basketball?

[PoHoosier]

As with many threads on various subjects we discuss here, I see both sides of it.
I remember reading in recent years that 'Johnny Football' was worth $6 million per year to his school while playing.
On the flip side, there are hundreds or even thousands of student athletes that are not lucky enough to participate in a money sport for every one Manziel.
Though the system isn't perfect and does need tweaks, I cannot advocate paying athletes beyond an education.

In my younger years, I wish I were motivated when it came to my studies and were able to receive an academic scholarship or perhaps pursued one as an athlete.
Undoubtedly, this is selfish of me knowing my scholarship dollars are coming from elsewhere knowing I did not pay with cash.  Just like the athletes wanting to get paid, I desire a better life.
Who am I to say that is wrong for others or myself.  I believe it all comes down to one thing -  follow the money.  Where does athletic money go?  Does it pay for other scholarships?  If I understood this, I would probably feel more strongly one way or the other.

[rico]

9 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

The empty balconies in Assembly Hall this year tell a different story.

Empty balconies or not, there is plenty of TV money rolling in.  I'm with Po.......I want to know what the money trail is.  Where does the money go?  How is it distributed?

[Seeking6]

9 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

The empty balconies in Assembly Hall this year tell a different story.

I thought Gleas said during Crean's first 3 years in his point. I keep reading again to try and find where he discussed this year attendance.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

24 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I thought Gleas said during Crean's first 3 years in his point. I keep reading again to try and find where he discussed this year attendance.

Not sure what your point is. Scott said that the fans come for the name on the front of the jersey. Gleas agreed with his idea, referencing Creans first year. I used this last year as a very clear counter point. The fans certainly didn’t show up for the name on the front of the jersey. 

[FW_Hoosier]

58 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Not sure what your point is. Scott said that the fans come for the name on the front of the jersey. Gleas agreed with his idea, referencing Creans first year. I used this last year as a very clear counter point. The fans certainly didn’t show up for the name on the front of the jersey. 

And you can bet the balconies will be filled next year with Romeo on the team.

[Guest]

The money coming into college sports is from the television contracts more than anything else.

People attend games for a variety of reasons, but one sure reason they don't is if the product on the field/court/diamond/ice is poor. Too many examples to illustrate that. DJ pointed out the poor attendance at our basketball games. When has IU football ever consistently filled Memorial Stadium? People have other things to spend their hard earned money on, if the product is poor--best example I can give of that is UCLA basketball and the empty seats in Pauley Pavilion. 

The idea that folks are going to come and root on Alma Mater U just because is long outdated. As much as I dislike all the ancillary things that go on during a game (kissing boards, bratwurst races, you get the idea), that's what sports has become today. People want to be entertained. If the team they root for is poor, they'll find something else to do.

Now, in saying all that....again, the dollars are coming from the tv contracts. Should athletes get paid some of those dollars? Besides their tuition room and board, I'd argue that they are benefiting from the increase in money into athletic department coffers. Better training facilities, better nutritional programs, more academic support. Look up the Clemson football program and read about the new facilities that Dabo Sweeney has built to attract high level recruits. Bowling alleys, game rooms, spas, and on and on. All for the benefit of athletes, and definitely not accoutrements that are available to Joe Dorm Resident.

[rico]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

The money coming into college sports is from the television contracts more than anything else.

People attend games for a variety of reasons, but one sure reason they don't is if the product on the field/court/diamond/ice is poor. Too many examples to illustrate that. DJ pointed out the poor attendance at our basketball games. When has IU football ever consistently filled Memorial Stadium? People have other things to spend their hard earned money on, if the product is poor--best example I can give of that is UCLA basketball and the empty seats in Pauley Pavilion. 

The idea that folks are going to come and root on Alma Mater U just because is long outdated. As much as I dislike all the ancillary things that go on during a game (kissing boards, bratwurst races, you get the idea), that's what sports has become today. People want to be entertained. If the team they root for is poor, they'll find something else to do.

Now, in saying all that....again, the dollars are coming from the tv contracts. Should athletes get paid some of those dollars? Besides their tuition room and board, I'd argue that they are benefiting from the increase in money into athletic department coffers. Better training facilities, better nutritional programs, more academic support. Look up the Clemson football program and read about the new facilities that Dabo Sweeney has built to attract high level recruits. Bowling alleys, game rooms, spas, and on and on. All for the benefit of athletes, and definitely not accoutrements that are available to Joe Dorm Resident.

Good stuff Jerry.

I am pretty sure we have had a similar discussion about this on the old board.  But I was a college athlete and on a full ride.  Albeit in track and at a small school.  None the less the athletes were all put into one big dorm.  We were treated quite well.  We had rec rooms, free laundry, tutors,.....you name it, we got it.  Lots of perks to be sure.  We got the "VIP" treatment.  I always felt bad for "Joe Dorm Resident" because his room and board did not cover meals on the week-end.  While all of us athletes ate the whole time.  Now the caveat here is that was at a small school and the mid 80's.  Lord knows what these guys have at the big schools here in the year 2018.  It would be naive to think(yes I used it!) that things haven't gone up a 100X fold.  They are compensated quite well.

All that being said, they(stars in college) sit and look at the money that is being generated and they want a piece of the pie.  When truth be told they already have the pie.  They have lost sight of what it is supposed to be about and that be an education.  

[IU Scott]

2 hours ago, FW_Hoosier said:

And you can bet the balconies will be filled next year with Romeo on the team.

They will come if you are winning no matter who is on the court.  If they get rid of the one and done rule and a lot of the top players go pro you will still see teams like UK and Duke fill their arenas.  If UK and Duke had a roster like UW or Wichita St but they were still winning at a high rate their arenas would still be full.

[FW_Hoosier]

31 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

They will come if you are winning no matter who is on the court.  If they get rid of the one and done rule and a lot of the top players go pro you will still see teams like UK and Duke fill their arenas.  If UK and Duke had a roster like UW or Wichita St but they were still winning at a high rate their arenas would still be full.

The reason UK and Duke are winning at a high rate is because they’re getting better players than UW and WSU...

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

The reason UK and Duke are winning at a high rate is because they’re getting better players than UW and WSU...

You are not getting what I am saying, if they change the rules and all the top players are not playing college basketball.  If in the future the best players in college are the kind of players who use to go to the schools like I mentioned but now go to UK or Duke those stadiums will still be packed.

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

You are not getting what I am saying, if they change the rules and all the top players are not playing college basketball.  If in the future the best players in college are the kind of players who use to go to the schools like I mentioned but now go to UK or Duke those stadiums will still be packed.

The NCAA was doing well before the NBA instituted the one and done rule, and it was still the players that were responsible for the NCAA doing well at that time.

[FW_Hoosier]

44 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

You are not getting what I am saying, if they change the rules and all the top players are not playing college basketball.  If in the future the best players in college are the kind of players who use to go to the schools like I mentioned but now go to UK or Duke those stadiums will still be packed.

I get what you are saying, and.  If the NBA gets rid of the one and done rule, it will just be relatively worse players generating the revenue instead of better ones.  Like you said, teams have to win to get fans to show up.  And to win, teams have to get the best players relative to the competition, whether those players are future pros or not.

[mrflynn03]

If players were paid how would they do it? Equal pay so a Tim Priller makes the same as Juwan Morgan or pay based on talent level? 

People only discuss paying mens basketball and football.

What about women's basketball? And all the subsidized sports.  Wouldn't those athletes want to be paid?  I think it would be disastrous if the universities had do foot the bill.

 

[FW_Hoosier]

6 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

If players were paid how would they do it? Equal pay so a Tim Priller makes the same as Juwan Morgan or pay based on talent level? 

People only discuss paying mens basketball and football.

What about women's basketball? And all the subsidized sports.  Wouldn't those athletes want to be paid?  I think it would be disastrous if the universities had do foot the bill.

 

To be clear, I’m not for players being paid by the universities.  Too many issues like the ones you mentioned.  But I’m all for players being able to make as much money as they can off of their own likeness.

[BobSaccamanno]

Title IX is always a lurking factor in these discussions.  It was a well intentioned idea to wipe out gender bias and afford women the same scholarship opportunities as men.  Fair enough.  If they go to a compensation model, you would have to structure it in such a way that Title IX is not a factor.  Perhaps the solution is a percentage of money made by their particular sport.  Even that is tricky.  I am not an accountant but know enough to understand that you can manipulate your books to account for expenses or depreciation in such a way that you look less profitable.  So, you'd need a fair system.  I am not sure that kid from Wisconsin is saying that a girl's Lacrosse player deserves a pay out.  He wants it linked to revenue.

In the end, I am in favor of some more money to players but it would be more modest than the kid from Wisconsin thinks.  

As for sponsorship money being allowed, that could work in IU's favor in the sense that so many businesses in Indiana could throw cash at star players to get them to IU.  Butm it just creates an opportunity for a wild west that would make amateur sports unseemly.  The schools may go for it as a better alternative than using university sports revenue.

Since our favorite word is "naive," the players can seem to be naive if they see a bucket of unlimited cash and just want fist fulls thrown their way.  The schools make alot of money, obviously, from TV rights and so on.  While that is a lot of money, it has an origin and use, and that is all finite.  That money is used on expenses associated with the players (they get lots of perks), exorbitant coach's salaries, enhanced locker rooms, practice facilities, study facilities, weight rooms, and a variety of other sports capital projects, many tailored for players themselves.  If the players have a gripe, they could look at offensive coordinators making seven figures or head coaches making $4 million or more.  The money they want will be coming out of another end use some place. 

[OGIUAndy]

My problem with paid argument is where does it stop? Wouldn't the school with the most money get all the great players? Is the money from boosters? Where does the money come from and what are the limits? And Hayes argument could be made for Little League, middle school, high school etc. Basically all amateur sports make money some way via concessions, tickets, sponsorships etc. And of course the better the team/players  the more those organizations will make. I am sure a middle school team with Romeo on it would sell more tickets and merchandise than a team with me on it. Should he get paid in middle school? Then the whole notion of which players get paid (or what amount) versus others. 

[Drroogh]

Never liked Hayes as a player and even less as a role model. Not! His bringing up racial bias as why players don't get payed, completely ignores his gender bias as Bob pointed out with Title 9! To the point about empty balconies, IU still had the number 9 attendance number and by the way Duke is 47! 

Could really go on here, with both notions but going to end with my last boss is a Black Female and I'm in the engineering field. At MY last evaluation she asked what she could do better, I sincerely stated I thought she was one of the best bosses I had ever had. The point I am making is besides those college degrees really meaning something, it is the person inside that really counts!! This whole ATTITUDE that players deserve something, completely ignores that they are given a huge advantage to get ahead of everyone else, and the ones that complain the most are the ones that do the least with that advantage!!

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

4 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

Never liked Hayes as a player and even less as a role model. Not! His bringing up racial bias as why players don't get payed, completely ignores his gender bias as Bob pointed out with Title 9! To the point about empty balconies, IU still had the number 9 attendance number and by the way Duke is 47! 

Could really go on here, with both notions but going to end with my last boss is a Black Female and I'm in the engineering field. At MY last evaluation she asked what she could do better, I sincerely stated I thought she was one of the best bosses I had ever had. The point I am making is besides those college degrees really meaning something, it is the person inside that really counts!! This whole ATTITUDE that players deserve something, completely ignores that they are given a huge advantage to get ahead of everyone else, and the ones that complain the most are the ones that do the least with that advantage!!

I’m assuming you went off of raw attendance and not percentage of capacity with those rankings.