danjsport wrote:

So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….

No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….

No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.

I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?

DC Native wrote:

GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

So what you’re saying is, now that schools may actually have to pay cash to players, coaches won’t do as well financially?? When you have to pay the talent (with dollars), the other people can’t benefit off their “free education” quite the same way….

No, I am saying coaches won't do as well financially when schools de-emphasize sports and drop to a lower conference or lower Division. A school is not paying MM salaries when they are competing in LM or D3 conferences. And, student-athletes won't do as well either as the number of athletics scholarships will also drop or be eliminated at a school that drops. Seems like a lose-lose to me except for the P5 schools.

I really appreciate the insight and insider information that you bring to this board, GWRising, but I just don't get the logic here. How can every university outside of the P5 drop down to a lower conference or division? Who will be replacing them in conferences like the A10, MWC, CUSA, and WAC? If there are no schools to replace them, what is the point of dropping down? There are and will always be a finite number of P5 schools, and thus scholarships at those P5 schools. There will also always be schools and conferences outside of the P5 that will do better than others at getting the best players that are not quite good enough to get a P5 scholarship. I can see the argument for the gap to widen in the coming years between P5 and non-P5 schools, but the idea that GW will have to drop down from the A10 because that will be the case for all non-P5 schools doesn't make logical sense to me. Am I missing something here?

Yes, as the majority of schools will become more in the have not category, the P5 will at some point determine that they bring nothing to the table. At the same time, the have nots will see their own revenues shrinking as they become less and less relevant leading to more economic losses from athletics. This will lead to a schism of sorts and a different division for all the have nots. GW likely being a have not in this scenario will de facto be placed in another division - a lower division. This is how D3 was formed except there it had to do with scholarships. IMHO, this is exactly how all of this will play out. It's not IF it's WHEN. Now there could be an interim phase where GW drops to a lower conference. I give it 10 years maximum before the schism.

Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the 
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA  and the big schools. 
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
  For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
   College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people. 
  Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential. 
   At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
    And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
       We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
       This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
        The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.

jf wrote:

Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the 
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA  and the big schools. 
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
  For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
   College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people. 
  Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential. 
   At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
    And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
       We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
       This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
        The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.

Imagine if Amazon bought a bunch of apartment complexes and said to their workers for the first three years that they would “pay for” their housing, and provide them mentorship from the top minds in the field while really helping these individuals develop their skills so that they could either become mentors themselves or move on to a different career path three years later. The consultant and coaching time they’d get would typically cost 120k per year, but Amazon will
Provide that for free! All in exchange for hard work, a commitment to stick with Amazon for three years, and to make sure to talk about how great the opportunity is at every chance you get. Or maybe they will only offer this to kids leaving high school who don’t need a degree. So they should really be thankful for the chance.

Would anybody go for this? Think it’s a good deal for the kid?

Gwmayhem wrote:

danjsport wrote:

jf wrote:

Treating "student-athletes" decently is one thing. Would argue they already are, but their labor
could be rewarded in a number of personal and community ways that wouldn't be as crazy as the 
unfettered nonsense we are going through now courtesy of the NCAA  and the big schools. 
By the way, Joe Bamisile is the reason for some, though hardly all, of this. Joe might be able to keep up with the academics, but many probably can't handle such change, and no doubt lose credits in any case. What does "college" mean to any marketable athlete anymore?
  For the vast, vast majority of college athletes, including the now highly compensated basketball and football players, going pro is not an option. Even for the lucky very few who do, their working life is many years after they leave the sport.
   College could and should serve a function, both in career development and frankly, personal growth. For the lucky ones who can attend, it is four years largely shielded from the responsibilities of life, spent with people your age, learning independence and especially for this generation, how to relate to people. 
  Changing schools for a better contract or a more prominent role every year--or even more than once, doesn't really allow one to develop a non-athletic life. Or quite possibly, even your athletic potential. 
   At GW, you get a $400,000+ package with expenses covered, plus an NIL salary for really talented players, you travel by charter, you're lionized in giant posters and elsewhere, and you have the ability to get a great education in the capital of the world.
    And by the way, if you're really good and want to develop, we sent three players to the NBA in three years. And they got their degrees.
       We don't make real significant money off our sports programs, including basketball, if we aren't in the red.
       This seems like a pretty reasonable and attractive package for a pleasant experience with great potential for lifetime opportunity.
        The shame is that is not enough. And college athletics become anything but what it is supposed to
be.

Imagine if Amazon bought a bunch of apartment complexes and said to their workers for the first three years that they would “pay for” their housing, and provide them mentorship from the top minds in the field while really helping these individuals develop their skills so that they could either become mentors themselves or move on to a different career path three years later. The consultant and coaching time they’d get would typically cost 120k per year, but Amazon will
Provide that for free! All in exchange for hard work, a commitment to stick with Amazon for three years, and to make sure to talk about how great the opportunity is at every chance you get. Or maybe they will only offer this to kids leaving high school who don’t need a degree. So they should really be thankful for the chance.

Would anybody go for this? Think it’s a good deal for the kid?

Danj, you've got me starting to feel very ripped off.  After all, I received two academic degrees and in all the time I was in school, nobody paid me a salary to attend.    I mean, I was the schmuck who got by on accepting the value of an education and enjoyment of my college experience without receiving a penny for this.  Sure, it's true that I did not help generate revenue for the school by playing a sport, but doesn't tuition and cost of attendance count for something?  And, I did have a job my senior year, otherwise known as an internship, which afforded me 6 school credits but not a single dime in my pocket.  Since I drove to and from that internship, I had to pay for gas and clearly lost money on that deal.  I guess GW was happy enough to have you back in the day that your attendance was more than compensated for with a nice salary.  In retrospect, I really wish I had negotiated my deal a bit more aggressively.

And as for your Amazon example, you have to look no further than Chris Caputo who broke into the coaching profession by working for free under Jim Larranaga.  Over time, he would receive a tiny stipend that one could not live on by himself.  I hope you'll agree that things have worked out for him financially, due somewhat in part to the early sacrifices he made.
 

You paid for a service, and did not raise money for the school. These kids are revenue generators and not being paid money for it. Yes-an education counts for something. But until somebody can tell me the actual dollars it costs the school for those kids, I suspect the numbers are not that high. This creates a bigger education and cost of education conversation not meant for today.

As far as you working for credits and CC working for free, my opinion here is consistent. I don’t think that should have happened. I think that the ability to work for free rests largely on people who have money in the family, allowing them to work for free; or people who are taken advantage of with the prospect of a potential future. For every CC there is a kid who couldn’t make it, racked up gambling debt, drug addiction, or lost everything.

I don’t think internships should come without pay. I don’t think people should be asked to make other people money without being compensated with money.