ADVERTISEMENT

In the future, can we stop calling them "student" athletes?

Chairman Moe

All American
Nov 4, 2003
6,050
2,063
113
Just around the corner from Paradise
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:

1) beginning next year schools will have to allocate about $22-23 million to pay their "student" athletes
2) assuming that the "split" among a college/university's athlete payroll would be 75% football/10% basketball/15% all other sports:
a) that means - on average - a football player would earn about $200k ($17M divided by 85 players)
b) a basketball player - on average - ($2.3M divided by 24 players - men + women) would earn about $100k
c) all other athletes - on average - ($3.4M divided by 170 +/-) would earn about $20k
3) on top of the $ paid to the "student" athlete, they could also get an NIL bonus from outside booster/alliance orgs, PLUS
4) they get full tuition/room and board/travel

Don't get me wrong. I was all for making sure that the student athlete was able to afford to treat themself/have an allowance/get some small portion of the revenue money ... but this has gone waaayyy out of control. Some of these kids would literally have to take a pay cut to play in the NFL/NBA/MLS et al

Please, we all know that less than 1% of the kids who play college sports will develop into a professional athlete. The benefit they get by going to college - tuition-free - is hopefully earning a degree that will help them achieve as an adult, after college. With this new "plan", what incentives are there for athletes in college to even go to class? Why bother?

Am I missing something here?
 
As a football player who is responsible for a majority of the TV revenue, I'd have a big problem with this money breakdown.
 
As a football player who is responsible for a majority of the TV revenue, I'd have a big problem with this money breakdown.

The school is going to decide how to spend the money. For most schools, it'll be:

90% football
10% men's basketball (only need to pay about 10 guys)
0% everything else

Title IX doesn't apply to payments.

And yes, to the OP, a large percentage of these "students" will take a paycut if they go pro. Which is why the next lawsuit will be for unlimited eligibility. You see this most in basketball, where the NBA requires a very specific skillset, much different than college basketball. Look at guys like Bacot and Tshiebwe who made much more in college. A guy like Dejuan Blair, would be worth $2 million or more to a college team today, much more than he potentially make in the NBA.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: jctrack
As a football player who is responsible for a majority of the TV revenue, I'd have a big problem with this money breakdown.
I used this "breakdown" as just one possible scenario. Consider some of the P4 schools who have high revenue earnings from basketball (UKY, e.g., Kansas, Tennessee, UConn), might find it more reasonable to pay those athletes a higher amount ... but regardless, that's a lot of coin for a student athlete
 
  • Like
Reactions: jctrack
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:

1) beginning next year schools will have to allocate about $22-23 million to pay their "student" athletes
2) assuming that the "split" among a college/university's athlete payroll would be 75% football/10% basketball/15% all other sports:
a) that means - on average - a football player would earn about $200k ($17M divided by 85 players)
b) a basketball player - on average - ($2.3M divided by 24 players - men + women) would earn about $100k
c) all other athletes - on average - ($3.4M divided by 170 +/-) would earn about $20k
3) on top of the $ paid to the "student" athlete, they could also get an NIL bonus from outside booster/alliance orgs, PLUS
4) they get full tuition/room and board/travel

Don't get me wrong. I was all for making sure that the student athlete was able to afford to treat themself/have an allowance/get some small portion of the revenue money ... but this has gone waaayyy out of control. Some of these kids would literally have to take a pay cut to play in the NFL/NBA/MLS et al

Please, we all know that less than 1% of the kids who play college sports will develop into a professional athlete. The benefit they get by going to college - tuition-free - is hopefully earning a degree that will help them achieve as an adult, after college. With this new "plan", what incentives are there for athletes in college to even go to class? Why bother?

Am I missing something here?
You’re missing even a Mediocre Pat making $6mil a year .
The money is going to the wrong person
 
Title IX doesn't apply to payments.

And yes, to the OP, a large percentage of these "students" will take a pay cut if they go pro. Which is why the next lawsuit will be for unlimited eligibility.
I could see Congress stepping in with regards to Title IX

Please explain the "unlimited eligibility" comment. Does that mean that a "kid" could continue participating in college athletics well into his/her adult years??
 
You’re missing even a Mediocre Pat making $6mil a year .
The money is going to the wrong person
Pat's check would come out of a separate "payroll", I'm guessing, but maybe the University would consider all payroll from an Athletics' Department budget

And if - indeed - the lion's share of the money should be going to the athletes, why bother calling them students anymore? The point of my post was not to condemn the payment of $; it was to call out the need to refer to them as "student" athletes

And another question: would these student athletes be responsible for the various taxes/deductions/withholdings from their pay?
 
I could see Congress stepping in with regards to Title IX

Please explain the "unlimited eligibility" comment. Does that mean that a "kid" could continue participating in college athletics well into his/her adult years??

You'd see this more in basketball. The only position in football where you could get rich in college and not make the NFL is at QB. So lets say old Pat White from WVU decides he isnt going to have much of a future in the NFL but can make $2 million or $3 million in college football. He sues the NCAA saying as long as he remains a college student...even until he's 30 or 35, they arent legally allowed to deny him the right to earn a living based on an arbitrary 4-5 eligibility year rule. In basketball, lets go back to DeJuan Blair or Julius Page or Blake Hinson. Pitt has had many players who could have made far more in college. That old Howland/Dixon team of BK & Co. What if they decided to stay at Pitt until they are 30? How could they lose that lawsuit?
 
You'd see this more in basketball. The only position in football where you could get rich in college and not make the NFL is at QB. So lets say old Pat White from WVU decides he isnt going to have much of a future in the NFL but can make $2 million or $3 million in college football. He sues the NCAA saying as long as he remains a college student...even until he's 30 or 35, they arent legally allowed to deny him the right to earn a living based on an arbitrary 4-5 eligibility year rule. In basketball, lets go back to DeJuan Blair or Julius Page or Blake Hinson. Pitt has had many players who could have made far more in college. That old Howland/Dixon team of BK & Co. What if they decided to stay at Pitt until they are 30? How could they lose that lawsuit?
The only college students that I recall staying beyond four years were the ones who were trying to milk their 2-S deferment long enough to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War ... 😜
 
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:

1) beginning next year schools will have to allocate about $22-23 million to pay their "student" athletes
2) assuming that the "split" among a college/university's athlete payroll would be 75% football/10% basketball/15% all other sports:
a) that means - on average - a football player would earn about $200k ($17M divided by 85 players)
b) a basketball player - on average - ($2.3M divided by 24 players - men + women) would earn about $100k
c) all other athletes - on average - ($3.4M divided by 170 +/-) would earn about $20k
3) on top of the $ paid to the "student" athlete, they could also get an NIL bonus from outside booster/alliance orgs, PLUS
4) they get full tuition/room and board/travel

Don't get me wrong. I was all for making sure that the student athlete was able to afford to treat themself/have an allowance/get some small portion of the revenue money ... but this has gone waaayyy out of control. Some of these kids would literally have to take a pay cut to play in the NFL/NBA/MLS et al

Please, we all know that less than 1% of the kids who play college sports will develop into a professional athlete. The benefit they get by going to college - tuition-free - is hopefully earning a degree that will help them achieve as an adult, after college. With this new "plan", what incentives are there for athletes in college to even go to class? Why bother?

Am I missing something here?
I already have.
 
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:

1) beginning next year schools will have to allocate about $22-23 million to pay their "student" athletes
2) assuming that the "split" among a college/university's athlete payroll would be 75% football/10% basketball/15% all other sports:
a) that means - on average - a football player would earn about $200k ($17M divided by 85 players)
b) a basketball player - on average - ($2.3M divided by 24 players - men + women) would earn about $100k
c) all other athletes - on average - ($3.4M divided by 170 +/-) would earn about $20k
3) on top of the $ paid to the "student" athlete, they could also get an NIL bonus from outside booster/alliance orgs, PLUS
4) they get full tuition/room and board/travel

Don't get me wrong. I was all for making sure that the student athlete was able to afford to treat themself/have an allowance/get some small portion of the revenue money ... but this has gone waaayyy out of control. Some of these kids would literally have to take a pay cut to play in the NFL/NBA/MLS et al

Please, we all know that less than 1% of the kids who play college sports will develop into a professional athlete. The benefit they get by going to college - tuition-free - is hopefully earning a degree that will help them achieve as an adult, after college. With this new "plan", what incentives are there for athletes in college to even go to class? Why bother?

Am I missing something here?
This is still a "small portion of the revenue money." This type of payout is less than 20% of the direct revenue that football generates at most P4 programs (compared to around 50% for most pro sports). At some schools, $17 million is less than 10% of the total direct revenue generated by the football program.

That's a lower percentage of revenue than even the WNBA that would be better off burning money than operating a league.

This revenue has nothing to do with what they are going to do after college. That's the entire point of paying them a portion of the revenue they are currently responsible for generating. That's literally what the lawsuits are about. It's about all those college players that won't make $millions in the pro leagues not being able to get a fair share of their value for the 4-5 years that they are essentially working a full-time job for their university.

It's about the fact that an unnatural constraint of trade and competition, that would be highly illegal in any other aspect of modern American society, is preventing the players from negotiating with their schools for compensation.
 
The school is going to decide how to spend the money. For most schools, it'll be:

90% football
10% men's basketball (only need to pay about 10 guys)
0% everything else

Title IX doesn't apply to payments.

And yes, to the OP, a large percentage of these "students" will take a paycut if they go pro. Which is why the next lawsuit will be for unlimited eligibility. You see this most in basketball, where the NBA requires a very specific skillset, much different than college basketball. Look at guys like Bacot and Tshiebwe who made much more in college. A guy like Dejuan Blair, would be worth $2 million or more to a college team today, much more than he potentially make in the NBA.
Pitt will pay other athletes. WVB players deserve it.
 
Should drop all pretences of being students and just make them a college affiliated semi pro team. Then have them sign contracts just like pros do that limit their ability to move. For those that do value a college education they can factor that into the overall compensation package
 
Pitt will pay other athletes. WVB players deserve it.

Volleyball players do not make the university $1. This is capitalism. The revenue goes to the revenue-generating athletes. You of all people should understand this. We should NOT be redistributing the "wealth" to those who dont earn the revenue.
 
It's all crazy ridiculous. But... since Pitt can't compete in football money, might as well redirect a higher percentage to basketball and buy a final four caliber team every year.

But then... what's the accomplishment?
 
Volleyball players do not make the university $1. This is capitalism. The revenue goes to the revenue-generating athletes. You of all people should understand this. We should NOT be redistributing the "wealth" to those who dont earn the revenue.
You want college athletics to be pure capitalism. It isn't. It is and will be some weird crossbreed of capitalism and extra-curricular activity that it used to be.

Btw, have you the sellouts at the WVB games and their appearances on TV? That is called revenue-generating.
 
Last edited:
Pat's check would come out of a separate "payroll", I'm guessing, but maybe the University would consider all payroll from an Athletics' Department budget

And if - indeed - the lion's share of the money should be going to the athletes, why bother calling them students anymore? The point of my post was not to condemn the payment of $; it was to call out the need to refer to them as "student" athletes

And another question: would these student athletes be responsible for the various taxes/deductions/withholdings from their pay?
The football budget is the football budget -
We are spending for coaches who can’t recruit and aren’t exactly winning schematic battles either .
It’s bad money after good .

Of course - income is income -
Unless it’s considered tips which the president elect pretended to exempt from taxes .
 
You want college athletics to be pure capitalism. It isn't. It is and will be some weird crossbreed of capitalism and extra-curricular activity that it used to be.

Btw, have you the sellouts at the WVB games and their appearances on TV? That is called revenue-generating.
Why shouldn’t it be ?
Let’s be honest - the game played for tax exemption is to spend every dime of revenue - so coaches and facilities get upgrades .
 
Should drop all pretences of being students and just make them a college affiliated semi pro team. Then have them sign contracts just like pros do that limit their ability to move. For those that do value a college education they can factor that into the overall compensation package

Meanwhile the NFL sits back and reaps all the benefits of a free farm system without contributing a dime towards it.
 
Just to make sure I understand this correctly:

1) beginning next year schools will have to allocate about $22-23 million to pay their "student" athletes
2) assuming that the "split" among a college/university's athlete payroll would be 75% football/10% basketball/15% all other sports:
a) that means - on average - a football player would earn about $200k ($17M divided by 85 players)
b) a basketball player - on average - ($2.3M divided by 24 players - men + women) would earn about $100k
c) all other athletes - on average - ($3.4M divided by 170 +/-) would earn about $20k
3) on top of the $ paid to the "student" athlete, they could also get an NIL bonus from outside booster/alliance orgs, PLUS
4) they get full tuition/room and board/travel

Don't get me wrong. I was all for making sure that the student athlete was able to afford to treat themself/have an allowance/get some small portion of the revenue money ... but this has gone waaayyy out of control. Some of these kids would literally have to take a pay cut to play in the NFL/NBA/MLS et al

Please, we all know that less than 1% of the kids who play college sports will develop into a professional athlete. The benefit they get by going to college - tuition-free - is hopefully earning a degree that will help them achieve as an adult, after college. With this new "plan", what incentives are there for athletes in college to even go to class? Why bother?

Am I missing something here?
You can call it what you want to, but call this (80+) old man cheap ass for not contributing to the pot. I will contribute to the pot of gold by watching it for free on TV, streaming not included. I am near the end of my life and I will always cheer for my panthers, but not contribute to the pot of gold.
 
Meanwhile the NFL sits back and reaps all the benefits of a free farm system without contributing a dime towards it.
they have been benefiting from the free farm system for decades. Dropping the pretenses of "student athlete" and going to a true semi pro system with actual contracts for athletes isnt going to change that.
 
Because it is college.
its pseudo college. With NIL is closer to semi pro football with kids moving annually to chase the highest dollar (Im not blaming them its just reality). Most of these kids are not thinking about whats best for their long term career prospects and are focused on maximizing revenue today. For some thats probably the right thing to do. For others is likely a mistake. As I said just drop the pretenses that P4/5 CFB has student athletes and run it like a minor league sports league with actual contracts for the athletes. Its pretty much that way today with NIL but without any structure.
 
You can call it what you want to, but call this (80+) old man cheap ass for not contributing to the pot. I will contribute to the pot of gold by watching it for free on TV, streaming not included. I am near the end of my life and I will always cheer for my panthers, but not contribute to the pot of gold.
Atch, I am one decade behind you, age-wise, so I totally understand. And as much of a football fan as I am, it's great knowing that there are other sports (volleyball, soccer, and basketball) our Panthers excel in
 
The football budget is the football budget -
We are spending for coaches who can’t recruit and aren’t exactly winning schematic battles either .
It’s bad money after good .

Of course - income is income -
Unless it’s considered tips which the president elect pretended to exempt from taxes .
To your last point: maybe that's what NIL is; a tip
 
  • Like
Reactions: USN_Panther
You want college athletics to be pure capitalism. It isn't. It is and will be some weird crossbreed of capitalism and extra-curricular activity that it used to be.

Btw, have you the sellouts at the WVB games and their appearances on TV? That is called revenue-generating.
Athletic revenue is generated by football and men's basketball as a distant 2nd.

The Big East Conference's basketball right are worth a little over 7 million per year. Without football that is the best they can get

WVB loses money
 
You want college athletics to be pure capitalism. It isn't. It is and will be some weird crossbreed of capitalism and extra-curricular activity that it used to be.

Btw, have you the sellouts at the WVB games and their appearances on TV? That is called revenue-generating.

They dont make enough on tickets to pay Fishers's $600K salary and that's just 1 expense. I figured you would realize I meant they dont make a dollar after expenses are paid. The program still operates in the red and that's fine. Its not supposed to make money. But until it does, you cant take money away from your pro athletes to pay the non-revenue ones.
 
Athletic revenue is generated by football and men's basketball as a distant 2nd.

The Big East Conference's basketball right are worth a little over 7 million per year. Without football that is the best they can get

WVB loses money

That's $7.3 million per year per school and that's without football. When you dont have that massive football expense, that's pretty good.

The ACC has said 80% of the value of its TV contract comes from football. 20% comes from basketball. That 20% gets split 18 ways to incorporate Notre Dame.
 
Re hoops: The benefit a team like Marquette has is almost all NIL money goes to basketball since they have probably a similar base of donors to a Rutgers or BC but dont need to spend any of it on a football team. No one is transferring out there, theyre spending a ton to retain good players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PittPharm2002
Athletic revenue is generated by football and men's basketball as a distant 2nd.

The Big East Conference's basketball right are worth a little over 7 million per year. Without football that is the best they can get

WVB loses money
It still generates revenue.
 
They dont make enough on tickets to pay Fishers's $600K salary and that's just 1 expense. I figured you would realize I meant they dont make a dollar after expenses are paid. The program still operates in the red and that's fine. Its not supposed to make money. But until it does, you cant take money away from your pro athletes to pay the non-revenue ones.
Yes, you can ... and Pitt most definitely does and will.
 
Not the point, though.

What is their net loss? Does it include their TV revenue?
It doesn't really generate TV revenue, they put it on TV because of the media contract and they need programming. If the ACC sold WVB rights separately they get almost nothing for them.

Networks pay for football and men's basketball and get the rest as part of the deal
 
It doesn't really generate TV revenue, they put it on TV because of the media contract and they need programming. If the ACC sold WVB rights separately they get almost nothing for them.

Networks pay for football and men's basketball and get the rest as part of the deal
The ACC sold a package of sports that includes WVB. They didn't sell just football and basketball.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jtownknowitall
The ACC sold a package of sports that includes WVB. They didn't sell just football and basketball.
Yes but without football they would have gotten a fraction of what they get now and less than that without men's basketball. Women's volleyball like all the other non revenue generating sports are part of the package but are worth maybe a couple of pennies on the dollar.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT