Dave Paulsen

[psyclone]

Let's look at it through this lens. What percentage of revenue the NCAA brings in (TV, sponsorships, etc.) should go to the student athletes? 51% like the NBA (or NFL, I forget). 80%? 20%? Then see how much the NCAA brings in, divided by the number of scholarship athletes, and bam, you have a number. It doesn't have to be hard.

What percentage does the school receive? One might argue that the $$ received the school receives (assuming that it is directed largely toward classrooms/facilities, faculty recruitment and retention,student services) provides support for ALL the students, including student athletes. Having the money go to the university athletic department results in outrageous salaries for assistant coaches and other scandalous expenditures like lazy rivers next to the athletic dorms (I think I saw that the strength coach at Alabama makes more than the University president).

The article in the twitter link points out that 98% of student athletes go on to non-professional sports occupations. Spreading the money around to benefit all students seems reasonably equitable.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Just going by 2014 numbers, the NCAA had $989 million in revenue, but $908 million in expenses, including paying colleges, so $81million profit.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...al-statement-2014-1-billion-revenue/70161386/

If there is one thing I'm sure of, it's that I don't understand all of the arguments for and against paying student athletes.

With that being said, and for the sake of simplification for simple-minded people like me, if we take that $81 million and divide it all between all NCAA athletes (450,000 - 500,000ish) then they all don't even get $200. So we've been spending all this time and energy arguing over $200?

Now I know that that the money would never be divided evenly for all levels, sports, or individual athletes, but what do you then do about the athletes that are costing more money than they are generating? Goodbye lesser sports. Goodbye title 9. Right?

Someone educate me.

 

[jmckend1]

If you start paying athletes, it should first, dollar-for-dollar, reduce their athletic scholarship and other costs associated with the "perks" of being an athlete, such as private tutors. At the point you are getting paid you are now under contract for a service and should recieve only that pay as consideration. Otherwise you're double dipping and if I was one paying to attend, especially with student loans and I saw that shit happening, I'd have a lawsuit ready.

 

[gmujim92]

If you start paying athletes, it should first, dollar-for-dollar, reduce their athletic scholarship and other costs associated with the "perks" of being an athlete, such as private tutors. At the point you are getting paid you are now under contract for a service and should recieve only that pay as consideration. Otherwise you're double dipping and if I was one paying to attend, especially with student loans and I saw that shit happening, I'd have a lawsuit ready.

Between tuition, housing, food, trainers, tutoring and almost unlimited amounts of gear (including several pairs of shoes every season that retail for more than $100 apiece), our basketball players are doing pretty well for themselves.

Honestly, at other than the top 10-15 richest schools, I'm not sure if student-athletes would come out significantly ahead if you paid them a salary (commensurate with revenue) but deducted for all the expenses related to their education.

 

[gmujim92]

Only on the gear side of things:

It's not "unlimited" gear, but a lot. They get a few pairs of shoes, and I'm not surprised they don't get more. I've had the same shoes for a few years, but I only play a few hours/week. They play a few hours/day and play 500000 times harder than I do.

Nike/adidas/UA pays a lot of money for college athletes to be billboards for them. But a $50 pair of tennis shoes (we buy in bulk, it's not like we go to Foot Locker) isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

I don't begrudge the players anything. Just pointing out that there is a value to everything they receive above and beyond a free college education that's worth $200,000 in many cases.

 

[Mason2005]

I don't begrudge the players anything. Just pointing out that there is a value to everything they receive above and beyond a free college education that's worth $200,000 in many cases.

They also get all the chicks!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[GSII]

Let alumni pay their fav athlete.

 

[GSII]

Like all the big boys.

 

[Petey Buckets]

I think the pay the players/don't pay the players conversation generally misses the point. If you lift the *restriction* on paying players and allow them to get paid, or allow them to receive whatever sort of impermissible benefits usually get programs in trouble, the problem will solve itself. Schools that can afford to pay will pay. Other schools will pay what they can, and the schools that can't pay get the players left over. No reason to stop boosters from giving as many hundred dollar handshakes as they want to.

The thing about doing it this way is that it doesn't really change the balance of power. The best recruits still go to the programs that can spend the most (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc). Schools can choose to spend their way into relevance like Oregon or Gonzaga. Schools already spend money to get recruits, just not in a way that allows the recruits to actually see it.

 

[Vurbel]

I think the pay the players/don't pay the players conversation generally misses the point. If you lift the *restriction* on paying players and allow them to get paid, or allow them to receive whatever sort of impermissible benefits usually get programs in trouble, the problem will solve itself. Schools that can afford to pay will pay. Other schools will pay what they can, and the schools that can't pay get the players left over. No reason to stop boosters from giving as many hundred dollar handshakes as they want to.

The thing about doing it this way is that it doesn't really change the balance of power. The best recruits still go to the programs that can spend the most (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc). Schools can choose to spend their way into relevance like Oregon or Gonzaga. Schools already spend money to get recruits, just not in a way that allows the recruits to actually see it.

If we do that we might as well have 4 national champions.

Group A: UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Syracuse, Kansas, Indiana, Oregon, Louisville

Group B: Georgetown, Maryland, Wake Forest, NC State, Boston College, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, USC, UNLV, Georgia Tech, Baylor, Clemson, Fla. St, Miami, Notre Dame

Group C: Us, Dayton, vcu, GW, UMass, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Boston College

Grop D: Elon, UNCG, Stephen F. Austin, Vermont, Hampton, UMBC.

 

[MasonSAE4]

If we do that we might as well have 4 national champions.

Group A: UNC, Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Syracuse, Kansas, Indiana, Oregon, Louisville

Group B: Georgetown, Maryland, Wake Forest, NC State, Boston College, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, USC, UNLV, Georgia Tech, Baylor, Clemson, Fla. St, Miami, Notre Dame

Group C: Us, Dayton, vcu, GW, UMass, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Boston College

Grop D: Elon, UNCG, Stephen F. Austin, Vermont, Hampton, UMBC.

Think you might be being a bit kind to Boston College

 

[Vurbel]

Think you might be being a bit kind to Boston College

True. My mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Strop]

Paying NCAA athletes is a slap in face to those who struggled to pay for a college degree. I went to Mason on the 5½ year plan. I had to pay half of my way working 30+ hours a week in retail. I knew others who had to pay even more for their education. Unlike most athletes, I didn't have the luxury of free tutors, free meals, free sneakers, free medical care, and free personal/group counseling. Scholarahip or not, athletes get benefits for playing a sport that regular students don't.

I know many on this forum followed a similar path. They, like me, would have gladly played a sport in exchange for the toil of supporting their education. Scholarship players already get paid to go to school by virtue of their scholarships. However, I would be in favor of providing a little bit more to the athletes who don't get scholarships. They're the ones who truly deserve it. They have to pay for school, go to school, and compete for the school—those students are my heroes.

 

[FreeGunston12]

Paying NCAA athletes is a slap in face to those who struggled to pay for a college degree. I went to Mason on the 5½ year plan. I had to pay half of my way working 30+ hours a week in retail. I knew others who had to pay even more for their education. Unlike most athletes, I didn't have the luxury of free tutors, free meals, free sneakers, free medical care, and free personal/group counseling. Scholarahip or not, athletes get benefits for playing a sport that regular students don't.

I know many on this forum followed a similar path. They, like me, would have gladly played a sport in exchange for the toil of supporting their education. Scholarship players already get paid to go to school by virtue of their scholarships. However, I would be in favor of providing a little bit more to the athletes who don't get scholarships. They're the ones who truly deserve it. They have to pay for school, go to school, and compete for the school—those students are my heroes.

Agree on most points, except the last. Those athletes don't have to compete for the school. They choose to because they want to. It is a priveledge, and one that they deserve. Do they hope for a scholarship? Sure. But they can choose not to compete if it is no longer worth it to them. They are in that position because the money/scholarships are better spent elsewhere. For what it's worth, I think that the athletes without scholarships prove that paying players is completely unnecessary.

 

[Patriotsince81]

Good read in case you haven't seen this. Sounds like things continue to get better behind the scenes. Paulsen is doing it the right way

http://www.gomason.com/news/2017/9/...ns-basketball-staff-as-graduate-managers.aspx

 

[gmu05]

Good read in case you haven't seen this. Sounds like things continue to get better behind the scenes. Paulsen is doing it the right way

http://www.gomason.com/news/2017/9/...ns-basketball-staff-as-graduate-managers.aspx

Dude, it's just the grad assistants. The guys that probably buy the Mountain Dew and schedule hotels

 

[ephoops]

I believe that Ryan Frazier, the new grad asst., is a great hire for the program.

I know that he was very highly regarded in the Bucknell community -- both on and off the court.

Paulsen's quote:

"Ryan is one of the most competitive and driven players I've ever coached," Paulsen said. "He got the absolute maximum out of his basketball ability during his career. He was a relentless competitor, a great defender and became a phenomenal leader within our program as well as on campus. He earned the respect of everyone in the Bucknell community for his thoughtful role on campus during some racially-charged conversations at the time. He's going to be a terrific mentor to our student-athletes and a great addition to our staff."

 

[Patriot8]

Dude, it's just the grad assistants. The guys that probably buy the Mountain Dew and schedule hotels

No.. that'd be Basketball Ops and Managers..

 

[Patriotsince81]

Dude, it's just the grad assistants. The guys that probably buy the Mountain Dew and schedule hotels

We'll just agree to disagree. It's the little things that go unnoticed that can reap huge reward. This quote from Paulsen in particular made me feel even better about the direction we are headed, "....University as a whole for providing us with this level of personnel support that is consistent with the rest of the Atlantic 10 and the top programs nationally." Sorry you don't see it that way.

 

[gmujim92]

Dude, it's just the grad assistants. The guys that probably buy the Mountain Dew and schedule hotels

You couldn't be more wrong. These guys will have a significant impact by taking duties off the assistant coaches' plates and giving them more time to spend working directly with the players and hitting the road to recruit.

Scouting has gotten much more sophisticated in college basketball, thanks to technology, and the size of a top-level A10 staff has grown along with it.

vcu has both a director of player development and a director of student-athlete development, in addition to grad assistants, student managers, strength coach video coordinator, the DOBO and on-court coaching staff.

Those guys take care of a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that the four coaches don't have to worry about.

It might seem like overkill, but just like with facilities, it is what it takes to compete at the top of the A10. It's great that Edwards recognizes that and is giving our staff a chance to fight without one hand tied behind their backs.