Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

East Coast Aztec

Fair market value on college players

Recommended Posts

LINK

 

 

The March survey, from the National College Players Association and Drexel University, said that the projected fair market value of the average college football player is $178,000 per year from 2011 to 2015, while the projected market value for the average college basketball player for the same time is $375,000.

 

 

My math may be wrong, but I think this study would mean they make up to 8 times more than the benefits they recieve. 

 

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LINK

 

 

 

My math may be wrong, but I think this study would mean they make up to 8 times more than the benefits they recieve. 

 

Discuss.

It's an average.  So players at the the power schools are worth a great deal more but players at Wyoming or SDSU might be worth right around the same cost as a scholarship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an average.  So players at the the power schools are worth a great deal more but players at Wyoming or SDSU might be worth right around the same cost as a scholarship

NCAA uses financial dictates that are socialistic and baselined.  I doubt they would stray far from that course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next step is to take a look at what they're currently getting. 4-5 years of tuition, housing, books (if scholarship athletes get all that). I'd bet that number gets pretty high. Probably not as high as the average listed, but still substantial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't doubt if they forced them into DII/FCS tier and priced them differently.

 

Obviously, I doubt they do anything that would be more equitable for students anyways.

I don't see schools like Kansas parting with 300k per student for bball or schools like ATM parting with their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see schools like Kansas parting with 300k per student for bball or schools like ATM parting with their money.

NCAA could probably have a way to control things such as the Madness revenue and corporate sponsorships.

 

The KU's and Bama's would not (or should not) be fiscally controlled on things like ticket sales and brand licensing and would keep their share. 

 

Conference revenues would be a battleground (TV contracts and bowls)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see schools like Kansas parting with 300k per student for bball or schools like ATM parting with their money.

 

I agree. College sports are what they are and many schools participate at the level they do because it's a damn good racket. I don't see them start to split the pie without a huge fight. Some schools won't be able to and others won't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if you are gonna go fair market value route then they should also stop giving scholarships to most D-I athletics. 

 

How much do you think that cross country runner on a full scholarships makes the school??? $5, a year???

 

I am sure MWC schools would be willing to pay the fair market value of basketball/football players if they made all of the non-revenue sports club teams (ie no scholarships and the athlete pays to play).

 

 If you go fair market value most schools would only sponsor men's  basketball and football. Sure some schools might add other sports (Fresno might try to sponsor baseball, Hawaii would sponsor women's volleyball,  ect).

 

Do I think D-1 athletes that participate in a sport that MAKES the school money should be starving? NO!  But I do not think they should be pro players (ie paid to play). If you wanna skip college and go straight to the pro's go ahead (for college football maybe the CFL or a new NBA D-League type option for football. For basketball you can go pro overseas for a year) . If you go to college you are not gonna get rich.Honestly I would be ok with a small stipend (maybe 5k a semester with a max of 10k a year) for sports that MAKE money (most college would only possible be football and men's basketball). BUT unfortunately if you give 5k to the football players a  semester title nine will want you to give 5k a semester to the cross country runner who makes ZERO dollars for the school. And yes paying every D-1 athlete 10k a year is wayyyy to expensive for most schools.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are way to many factors that go into this which would skew those numbers greatly. Many of us have had season tickets and donated money to the University for years without caring whose name is on the back. I support Fresno State in both good and bad years.

 

How can they justify saying player x is worth 178k if I would still support them the same if it was player Y in that position. There is no way to truly distinguish FMV. If NCAA didn't exist as it does, would their same skill set get them more or less than the value of their education? Since most collegiate athletes never even sniff the pros, I would say far less.

 

If anything, quite a few of them use their connection to the school to increase their business practices long after their playing days were over.

 

All of that said, I do think something needs to change. Since they limit the amount of money these kids can make a season, they should compensate them by paying them at least a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nation already has many athletic depatments running in the red. Things like this are going to push the system over the edge. When most univiersites are tax payer funded, and you have situations like the Universtiy of Utah raising tuition to cover increased athletic department costs I see a problem. Other peoples tuition money should not pay players salaries. If large profits are being generated they should be re-invested in the school itself.

 

This can only end with higher costs for the fans,and other non-athlete students.

 

 

 

CVEcMlXUEAAtMZW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nation already has many athletic depatments running in the red. Things like this are going to push the system over the edge. When most univiersites are tax payer funded, and you have situations like the Universtiy of Utah raising tuition to cover increased athletic department costs I see a problem. Other peoples tuition money should not pay players salaries. If large profits are being generated they should be re-invested in the school itself.

 

This can only end with higher costs for the fans,and other non-athlete students.

Not if NCAA revenue is what would be used to increase the player compensation.  Like a defacto dividend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair Market value? Really? Who else is willing to pay them anything to play? As long as the NCAA is one organization then fair market value needs to come from what their value is to another employer. If there was a value, someone would have started a minor league football league where only 18-22 year olds can play. That is the only way to determine their "value". And it would soon become ZERO since that league would fail. Supporters support schools not players. If there was no NCAA, the NFL might begin a development league. But as in MiLB the players would be paid squat and the NFL would have to subsidize the league. Fair market value is ZERO.

SDSU has had 5 upper half NCAA berths in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if NCAA revenue is what would be used to increase the player compensation.  Like a defacto dividend. 

 

Fans support their schools - not players. That is why there is revenue.

SDSU has had 5 upper half NCAA berths in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next step is to take a look at what they're currently getting. 4-5 years of tuition, housing, books (if scholarship athletes get all that). I'd bet that number gets pretty high. Probably not as high as the average listed, but still substantial.

Also include the cost of private tutoring to keep grades up, coaching, use of facilities, supplies such as helmet, padding, jersey, practice equipment, exposure for the NHL.  All of that needs to be accounted for.  If the school were not paying for it how much would it cost for EVERYTHING involved with playing the game and going to school.  That is what needs to be included into the equation of how much the students receive in compensation.  If we pay the players for the sports who make money, are we going to charge the players for the sports who cost the school money?  Everything has to be FAIR right?

This is 26,604 fans?  #FresnopullingaMiami

Fresno.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans support their schools - not players. That is why there is revenue.

Correct.  If Carr went to SJSU and Fales went to Fresno then Spartan fans would espouse the belief that Carr was better than Fales, and Vice Versa.  We support our school and ergo the students who attend them.

This is 26,604 fans?  #FresnopullingaMiami

Fresno.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also include the cost of private tutoring to keep grades up, coaching, use of facilities, supplies such as helmet, padding, jersey, practice equipment, exposure for the NHL.  All of that needs to be accounted for.  If the school were not paying for it how much would it cost for EVERYTHING involved with playing the game and going to school.  That is what needs to be included into the equation of how much the students receive in compensation.  If we pay the players for the sports who make money, are we going to charge the players for the sports who cost the school money?  Everything has to be FAIR right?

 

Good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...