menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Amateur doesn’t mean for free
Page: 1 of 2
mail
person
giacomo
4/11/2021 1:44 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/04/06/ncaa-spo... /

Good article. “Amateur” comes from the French, which in turn comes from the Latin word “amator”, which means “lover”. For the love of, not work for free.
mail
OUVan
4/11/2021 3:31 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
mail
person
giacomo
4/11/2021 5:50 PM
You are partially right. What would a prevailing salary be for a professor or a dean? Last time I checked it was 350k or so for a dean.What does a president make? Depends on the university. The salaries being paid, especially at P5, say professional all the way, including the billions being paid the NCAA for rights fees. I get that you would love not to pay 60k for school. But you still have to go to school, athletics is extra. It was fair in my day and maybe even fair in the MAC, but not P5. Bo Schembechler made 100k in 1981 and the president of UM made 105k. That number today would be 396k at 3.5% inflation. Jim Harbaugh makes 9M. It’s my opinion that our coaches are overpaid considering we make no money on athletics. The money is there and the kids are getting screwed.
mail
JSF
4/11/2021 8:06 PM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
Div. 2 gives scholarships.
mail
person
Ohio69
4/11/2021 9:29 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
You are partially right. What would a prevailing salary be for a professor or a dean? Last time I checked it was 350k or so for a dean.What does a president make? Depends on the university. The salaries being paid, especially at P5, say professional all the way, including the billions being paid the NCAA for rights fees. I get that you would love not to pay 60k for school. But you still have to go to school, athletics is extra. It was fair in my day and maybe even fair in the MAC, but not P5. Bo Schembechler made 100k in 1981 and the president of UM made 105k. That number today would be 396k at 3.5% inflation. Jim Harbaugh makes 9M. It’s my opinion that our coaches are overpaid considering we make no money on athletics. The money is there and the kids are getting screwed.
Screwed? Seems a bit much.

If the NCAA is such a bad deal, kids are free play elsewhere. No?
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
4/11/2021 9:35 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
You are partially right. What would a prevailing salary be for a professor or a dean? Last time I checked it was 350k or so for a dean.What does a president make? Depends on the university. The salaries being paid, especially at P5, say professional all the way, including the billions being paid the NCAA for rights fees. I get that you would love not to pay 60k for school. But you still have to go to school, athletics is extra. It was fair in my day and maybe even fair in the MAC, but not P5. Bo Schembechler made 100k in 1981 and the president of UM made 105k. That number today would be 396k at 3.5% inflation. Jim Harbaugh makes 9M. It’s my opinion that our coaches are overpaid considering we make no money on athletics. The money is there and the kids are getting screwed.
Screwed? Seems a bit much.

If the NCAA is such a bad deal, kids are free play elsewhere. No?
Agree with Ohio69.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
4/11/2021 10:20 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
Div. 2 gives scholarships.

How many? Not a full squad is it? Half get money, other half is only gear and playing time. Of course, the gear and perks should probably be included on the W2
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/11/2021 10:32 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
Div. 2 gives scholarships.
And not all DI players are on athletic scholarships.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/11/2021 10:34 PM
longtiimelurker wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
Div. 2 gives scholarships.

How many? Not a full squad is it? Half get money, other half is only gear and playing time. Of course, the gear and perks should probably be included on the W2
DII is a partial scholarship model, much like baseball is in DI. I believe the limit (maximum limit) is 30 scholarships at DII in Football.
mail
OUVan
4/12/2021 7:15 AM
JSF wrote:expand_more
For the love of, not work for free.
Only walk-ons or D2 and D3 athletes are working for free. The cost of my son's yearly education is north of $60K. Didn't see a single player that I'm aware of in the Final Four "working for free."
Div. 2 gives scholarships.

DII is a pool of money for basketball. Different players get differing amounts but no one is getting a full ride, or even close to it, on just their athletic scholarship alone.
mail
OUVan
4/12/2021 7:21 AM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
You are partially right.
No, I'm completely correct. You state I'm partially correct then argue a completely different point as usual.
mail
person
NewAthenian
4/12/2021 7:42 AM
According to a documentary I once watched, the word is French but the idea of amateur sports comes from England. It was conceived of by and for rich folk who didn't want anyone else playing in their leagues. Since no one was paid for playing, only the rich could afford to participate. The poor folk were too busy working for a living to play/practice.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
4/12/2021 8:45 AM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
You are partially right.
No, I'm completely correct. You state I'm partially correct then argue a completely different point as usual.
NCAA Division II
NCAA Division II is made up of smaller public universities and private colleges. There are 290 men’s programs, and 291 women’s programs, in Division II basketball. Each member college and university in Division II is restricted to 10 full ride scholarships for their men’s program, and 10 full ride scholarships for their women’s program. Unlike Division I schools, coaches at Division II schools may divide their allotted full tuition scholarships into partial tuition awards as a way of attracting more players to their campus. For example, a Division II coach may recruit 20 players for a school’s women’s basketball team, dividing the ten available scholarships between them.
mail
person
giacomo
4/12/2021 10:47 AM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
You are partially right.
No, I'm completely correct. You state I'm partially correct then argue a completely different point as usual.
Amateur operations don’t pay multi million dollar salaries and who knows what else. The scholarship is part of the compensation and could be adequate if the coaches were being paid in line with other faculty at the university. The money is there. Of course they don’t want to pay it and will make every excuse not to.

If you can afford to pay 60k for your kid to go to school, you’ve asked for a raise or two in your career. The kids see the money being thrown around while playing on TV, sold out arenas and stadiums, coaches making millions- no one pays to see someone coach. The rights fees being paid to the NCAA is in the billions. This is no amateur enterprise. It will change.
mail
person
IceCat76
4/12/2021 11:43 AM
If kids don't think that a full ride is enough they now have a new option.

https://www.overtimeelite.com /

https://twitter.com/GoodmanHoops/status/1381588671883776001

I can just see how many stage-door parents are pushing their 16-17 yr old to grab the $100K
Last Edited: 4/12/2021 11:44:37 AM by IceCat76
mail
person
Ohio69
4/12/2021 5:52 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
You are partially right.
No, I'm completely correct. You state I'm partially correct then argue a completely different point as usual.
Amateur operations don’t pay multi million dollar salaries and who knows what else. The scholarship is part of the compensation and could be adequate if the coaches were being paid in line with other faculty at the university. The money is there. Of course they don’t want to pay it and will make every excuse not to.

If you can afford to pay 60k for your kid to go to school, you’ve asked for a raise or two in your career. The kids see the money being thrown around while playing on TV, sold out arenas and stadiums, coaches making millions- no one pays to see someone coach. The rights fees being paid to the NCAA is in the billions. This is no amateur enterprise. It will change.
So, here's one thought on how this will play out. First, coaches salaries will not go down. At all. What likely would be reduced is the number of scholarship opportunities for student athletes. If I was running the MAC and suddenly all my schools had had to pay athletes and I had no additional sources of income, I'd tell the NCAA we need to reduce the number of sports needed to remain division I in football below 16. I'd go as low as possible. 8? 10? Then, a bunch of men's sports would be cut. And as many women's sports I could get away with under Title IX. Football and basketball would be untouched.

Whether the P5 breaks away or not, the other conferences likely will have no choice but to eliminate other opportunities to keep football and basketball going.

Thoughts?
Last Edited: 4/12/2021 5:53:16 PM by Ohio69
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/12/2021 7:26 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
You are partially right.
No, I'm completely correct. You state I'm partially correct then argue a completely different point as usual.
Amateur operations don’t pay multi million dollar salaries and who knows what else. The scholarship is part of the compensation and could be adequate if the coaches were being paid in line with other faculty at the university. The money is there. Of course they don’t want to pay it and will make every excuse not to.

If you can afford to pay 60k for your kid to go to school, you’ve asked for a raise or two in your career. The kids see the money being thrown around while playing on TV, sold out arenas and stadiums, coaches making millions- no one pays to see someone coach. The rights fees being paid to the NCAA is in the billions. This is no amateur enterprise. It will change.
So, here's one thought on how this will play out. First, coaches salaries will not go down. At all.
Why wouldn't coaching salaries go down? You don't think an organization whose costs just increased is going to look at all options to save money? And conclude that the same budget has to be spent more efficiently and choose to make their basketball coach the 30th highest paid university employee instead of the first? I'm not sure I understand that logic behind the baseline assumption that coaches will never get paid less.
mail
JSF
4/12/2021 9:30 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
Amateur operations don’t pay multi million dollar salaries and who knows what else.
The modern Olympics were convened for that exact reason. Organizers pocket the money and the athletes get nothing. The NFL is a non-profit. FIFA is a non-profit. The American Heart Association pays their CEO about $3 million. The executive officer of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence is paid millions!
mail
person
giacomo
4/12/2021 9:35 PM
Most people who paid to go to school and took out huge loans think that a scholarship is adequate, even great. I understand that thinking. Think of it this way: if you worked at a company the size of a football or basketball team that was highly profitable, and you knew that your boss made millions, but you and your co-workers all made 30k, would you think that is fair?

I saw that Nellis makes 419k in base, so Boals and Solich make more than our president. It’s even crazier at P5. Does that make sense to anyone?
Last Edited: 4/12/2021 9:43:23 PM by giacomo
mail
person
giacomo
4/12/2021 9:50 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
Amateur operations don’t pay multi million dollar salaries and who knows what else.
The modern Olympics were convened for that exact reason. Organizers pocket the money and the athletes get nothing. The NFL is a non-profit. FIFA is a non-profit. The American Heart Association pays their CEO about $3 million. The executive officer of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence is paid millions!
When my wife and I donate money to charities, we look closely at that. If it looks too lopsided we look elsewhere.
mail
person
Ohio69
4/12/2021 10:32 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Why wouldn't coaching salaries go down? You don't think an organization whose costs just increased is going to look at all options to save money? And conclude that the same budget has to be spent more efficiently and choose to make their basketball coach the 30th highest paid university employee instead of the first? I'm not sure I understand that logic behind the baseline assumption that coaches will never get paid less.
No, I don’t think they will go down. I think the majority of D1 football schools will keep shelling out the $. Should they go down? Different question than will they. I don’t see P5, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt backing down. Many univ in states south of Ohio are growing. No need to reduce any salaries or back off on athletics spending in many places. I think the market will keep salaries the same or up.
But, hey, just my speculation.
Last Edited: 4/12/2021 10:34:02 PM by Ohio69
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/13/2021 9:02 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Why wouldn't coaching salaries go down? You don't think an organization whose costs just increased is going to look at all options to save money? And conclude that the same budget has to be spent more efficiently and choose to make their basketball coach the 30th highest paid university employee instead of the first? I'm not sure I understand that logic behind the baseline assumption that coaches will never get paid less.
No, I don’t think they will go down. I think the majority of D1 football schools will keep shelling out the $. Should they go down? Different question than will they. I don’t see P5, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt backing down. Many univ in states south of Ohio are growing. No need to reduce any salaries or back off on athletics spending in many places. I think the market will keep salaries the same or up.
But, hey, just my speculation.
If the numbers reduced themselves, I would be surprised. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of FBS schools over the past 20 years.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
4/13/2021 9:39 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
No, I don’t think they will go down. I think the majority of D1 football schools will keep shelling out the $. Should they go down? Different question than will they. I don’t see P5, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt backing down. Many univ in states south of Ohio are growing. No need to reduce any salaries or back off on athletics spending in many places. I think the market will keep salaries the same or up.
But, hey, just my speculation.
I'm still not quite following.

If market dynamics dictate coaching salaries, but your initial point -- that there's not enough money in most college athletic programs to pay players -- is true, than which market principle is it that would keep coaching salaries as high as they are currently despite an increase in cost? Presumably coaching salaries are high because they create value, right? If your cost increases, your budget shrinks accordingly. The pie's not getting bigger, you've just got more people to feed.

It seems like the point you may actually be making is that markets play no role in college football coaching salary. Which I think I'm inclined to agree with. There's certainly not much of a rational, market-based explanation for Solich's salary. Maybe even if players are paid, coaches will still be compensated irrationally. I don't know. But I suspect if Ohio University suddenly needs to scare up another 250k in payroll for football players, they're going to wonder why they're paying Solich 700k a year while Sean Lewis at Kent's making $440,000k. Or while Coastal Carolina's coach makes $319k.
Last Edited: 4/13/2021 9:52:05 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/13/2021 11:16 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
No, I don’t think they will go down. I think the majority of D1 football schools will keep shelling out the $. Should they go down? Different question than will they. I don’t see P5, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt backing down. Many univ in states south of Ohio are growing. No need to reduce any salaries or back off on athletics spending in many places. I think the market will keep salaries the same or up.
But, hey, just my speculation.
I'm still not quite following.

If market dynamics dictate coaching salaries, but your initial point -- that there's not enough money in most college athletic programs to pay players -- is true, than which market principle is it that would keep coaching salaries as high as they are currently despite an increase in cost? Presumably coaching salaries are high because they create value, right? If your cost increases, your budget shrinks accordingly. The pie's not getting bigger, you've just got more people to feed.

It seems like the point you may actually be making is that markets play no role in college football coaching salary. Which I think I'm inclined to agree with. There's certainly not much of a rational, market-based explanation for Solich's salary. Maybe even if players are paid, coaches will still be compensated irrationally. I don't know. But I suspect if Ohio University suddenly needs to scare up another 250k in payroll for football players, they're going to wonder why they're paying Solich 700k a year while Sean Lewis at Kent's making $440,000k. Or while Coastal Carolina's coach makes $319k.
Think about this, that $250K figure you mention would be $2,083.00 per player at our current maximum roster size. I do not think that would even come close to being an adaquate salary for what those have in mind. You are more than likely talking figures in the millions, as you better pay all the athletes.
mail
person
longtiimelurker
4/13/2021 12:54 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
No, I don’t think they will go down. I think the majority of D1 football schools will keep shelling out the $. Should they go down? Different question than will they. I don’t see P5, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt backing down. Many univ in states south of Ohio are growing. No need to reduce any salaries or back off on athletics spending in many places. I think the market will keep salaries the same or up.
But, hey, just my speculation.
I'm still not quite following.

If market dynamics dictate coaching salaries, but your initial point -- that there's not enough money in most college athletic programs to pay players -- is true, than which market principle is it that would keep coaching salaries as high as they are currently despite an increase in cost? Presumably coaching salaries are high because they create value, right? If your cost increases, your budget shrinks accordingly. The pie's not getting bigger, you've just got more people to feed.

It seems like the point you may actually be making is that markets play no role in college football coaching salary. Which I think I'm inclined to agree with. There's certainly not much of a rational, market-based explanation for Solich's salary. Maybe even if players are paid, coaches will still be compensated irrationally. I don't know. But I suspect if Ohio University suddenly needs to scare up another 250k in payroll for football players, they're going to wonder why they're paying Solich 700k a year while Sean Lewis at Kent's making $440,000k. Or while Coastal Carolina's coach makes $319k.
Think about this, that $250K figure you mention would be $2,083.00 per player at our current maximum roster size. I do not think that would even come close to being an adaquate salary for what those have in mind. You are more than likely talking figures in the millions, AS YOU BETTER PAY ALL THE ATHLETES.
I have been waiting for that shoe to drop. As I watched the NCAA commercials during the Tourney I wondered about those 98% of athletes who "are not going professional" that they were touting. Do they get money and how do you decide on how much? Is their name, image and likeness going to be worth less? Are photographers at events going to go by the wayside? Do photos and video of athletes morph into NFTs that are owned by individuals and use without the consent of an athlete is going to provide Lawyers with job security till the year 3000 arguing about who owns the NIL of each digital property?
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 32
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)