Advertisement

Advertisement

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Pay-for-play among Bill Self talk topics

KU coach Bill Self talks to fans at Late Night in the Phog on Friday, Oct. 12, 2012, at Allen Fieldhouse.

KU coach Bill Self talks to fans at Late Night in the Phog on Friday, Oct. 12, 2012, at Allen Fieldhouse.

Advertisement

Bill Self, who is beginning his 20th season as a college basketball head coach and his 10th at Kansas University, has modified his position regarding certain issues throughout the years.

For instance ...

“I used to be totally against paying players, paying athletes. I’ve changed,” Self said Friday in a phone conversation with the Journal-World to discuss particulars of his upcoming “Courtside View” panel discussion set for 7-8:30 p.m., Nov. 1 at Lawrence’s Crown Toyota Pavilion.

“I think if presidents are willing to take these athletes and send them across America, miss more school because they have conference realignment, and with the big business of the BCS Championship playoff in football plus the amount of money we generate through television in basketball, I can’t imagine why there aren’t different angles and avenues in which we could compensate the people that are exactly the ones bringing the money to the schools — the student-athletes,” Self said, taking one long breath.

Perhaps the athletes could sell their own jerseys and receive the profits?

“We can get into that later,” Self said with a laugh, referring to the event at Miles Schnaer’s Crown facility.

The panel, which includes Self, plus national basketball writers/broadcasters Mike DeCourcy, Fran Fraschilla and Blair Kerkhoff, includes another supporter of paying athletes — ESPN’s Jay Bilas.

“The idea that regular students cannot be paid is ludicrous,” Bilas told the Durham Herald-Sun. “It’s a fiction that we put out there because we don’t want to pay them, and we don’t want to provide them with anything more. I don’t think it’s immoral or wrong for North Carolina or Duke or Norfolk State to make money off of sports. I think it’s profoundly immoral and wrong that they make all this money and don’t allow the players to have anything beyond a scholarship.”

This can all be hashed out at the roundtable discussion, which will include questions from the audience. Those who wish to purchase tickets to the event, which will include a social hour with food from several local restaurants, should visit www.assistyouth.org.

“We’ll get into paying amateurs. We’ll get into NCAA academic reform. We’ll get into the big business the NCAA has become, what the future will be of it in our opinion,” Self said. “We’ll get into rule enforcement. We’ll get into international recruiting, the one-and-done rule, conference realignment. We’ll also preview not only the Big 12 upcoming season but the national landscape.”

All proceeds from the event will benefit Self’s Assists Foundation’s programs, which include community grants and academic scholarships.

“We continue to grow our programs, but we’re also excited about the progress being made toward a facility in west Lawrence and hopeful that when plans are finalized we’ll be able to make a contribution,” Self said.

Self, whose third-annual Ladies Night Out event sold out in a day, is hoping for a huge crowd at Crown.

“I’m so excited for basketball coming on the heels of the 30-30 film with David Booth,” Self said of this week’s ESPN production which chronicled Booth purchasing James Naismith’s original rules of basketball at auction for his alma mater, KU. “The generosity and interest of individuals to better our sport in our area at our institution is remarkable.”

Weight talk: KU’s men’s and women’s basketball players have been using the new EliteForm weight training system during workouts this semester at Anderson Strength Center.

The EliteForm system, which according to KU officials is used by 10 strength training systems worldwide, uses a network of cameras, sensors and software. It allows coaches the ability to chart progress and performance during team workouts, tailor a workout specifically for an athlete during the course of the season and use the camera system to monitor and correct form.

For a video on KU’s new weight training system, go to http://www.kuathletics.com/genrel/101812aac.html

Comments

Scott MacWilliams 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey Coach, I'm with you on this one.
The big $$ being thrown around for athletics is getting ridiculous, and the people that are doing all the work to put the butts in the seats are deserving of more than just a free education. They need some amount of pay to help them with the little things that make life better. Not sure how to address the amount, but there has got to be a way...

Rock Chalk, Jayhawks!!!

0

dylans 1 year, 11 months ago

A student working an on campus job is limited to 20 hours per week and the best paying job in the late nineties was $8 per hour. So $12 per hour times 20 = $240 per week. Seems like fair compensation. The top students at the university will also make millions and donate millions to the university. The income generated by the former students far outweighs any income generated by the athletic department. So all students with a 3.0 gpa should be paid to go to school because they will be the future donors and are generating big money for the university, right?

1

DCLawHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

How about putting the money in trust until an athlete graduates?

5

Jeremy Bolinger 1 year, 11 months ago

Not seems to be. There are so many inherent advantages to being a student athlete here that there is no need for them to earn even more than they already do. It's nearly impossible to find a student athlete that doesn't have an iPhone and a $300 set of beats headphones.

1

JoeHawk91 1 year, 11 months ago

Really? Been to a college campus lately? EVERY student has an iPhone and an expensive pair of headphones.

0

Jeremy Bolinger 1 year, 11 months ago

I go to KU. Your statement is false!

0

martyks 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm thinking that most of the money should go into a trust fund. The athlete could have the option of getting a larger sum if and when he graduated, or he could receive this money four years after he began playing college ball. I don't believe someone should get more than other players because the University was able to sell his shirt or likenesses. It should all be fairly equal. That way, it wouldn't mess with the team. The incentive to be a star would really make life difficult for coaches trying to create an unselfish team.

0

RJ King 1 year, 11 months ago

Tuition, books, room & board over four years added up to over $100,000 for my out-of-state student at Kansas ('11). The athletes also benefit from free tutoring. Yes, practices take time. but my student worked 15-20 hours per week as well. It's a busy life for these kids, but the athletes are still getting a pretty sweet deal.

Also - I don't know about Kansas, but some schools (Stanford, for example) accept student athletes who would not have otherwise qualified there. So the athlete can sometimes benefit from more lenient admission standards.

Would there be revenue sharing? Would the BCS schools (with giant TV contracts) have an advantage over the mid-majors? (The West Coast Conference funds are a far cry from the Pac 12.) Would all sports be paid equally? (How would that trickle down to youth and high school sports - meaning, would kids choose which sport to play based on how much colleges were paying?)

4

Mike Bratisax 1 year, 11 months ago

A lot of great questions.. But I'm still in the camp where the athletes get paid AFTER graduation.

0

duanep5ku 1 year, 11 months ago

Okay on this matter, I seriously would have a problem with paying players. I know some would say the universities make money using them, so why not pay them. Well my thought, if you start paying athletes to go to school. where would you draw the line at how much? would every athlete get the same amount? Okay for those arguing that they should be paid why? Are we really supposed to give students money to go to College to play sports. When the student athlete all ready have an advantage over the other students. I mean the athletes get training,food, tutors, a free education, To me that seems like enough. I just don't like that ideal and here's another reason. The good athletes might go pro, I think the NBA pays good. I guess the last time I checked, it used to be you graduate, you get a better job. Why should the athlete be any different, because the get to play a sport in college and if good go pro, if not they get an education and get a job,hopefully. I like the ideal from the poster DCLawhawk How about getting a commitment from the student first,fix the one and done rule. I mean does anyone posting comments today,think it's a good ideal to pay a student money. Then what if he goes pro after one year or two? the player just took the money, used the school and moved on. Oh what if their paid,and they drop out, are they going to give the school a refund. It seems like a big problem to me. I also seem to remember when I was younger,if I had more money to spend, I was probably not spending it wisely.

0

Jeremy Bolinger 1 year, 11 months ago

My thoughts exactly. The benefits of being an athlete are so much greater than that of any normal KU student.

2

Leo Hawkins 1 year, 11 months ago

I get what you're saying. But, iF that is the case, the benefits of being Bill Self (3$3.8 million per year) is greater. Tuition, books, and board is nothing in comparison to what Bill Self generates off of the legs of student-athletes. Doesn't bother me a bit if a trust fund is set up, or if the NCAA cuts all scholarship hoops/football players (athletic dept. fund generators) a check. It is time these athletes get some of this money.

0

ParisHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

How many student non-athletes work part time to make ends meet, even if they have academic scholarships?

Athletes have to spend lots of time on their sports: 6 hours a day for basketball players. Hard to have a job on top of that.

I say minimum hourly wage for every hour spent on the sport, just as if you worked in the cafeteria. Just smooth it out over the school year, don't pay it all during the season.

Same pay scale whether you have a scholarship or not.

Every year you get a moderate raise.

Concerning refunds for dropouts, if I work in the cafeteria for awhile and then quit, I still get paid for the work I did.

0

oldalum 1 year, 11 months ago

Last I knew, students on athletic scholarships were not ALLOWED to work. They get some kind of monthly stipend over their room and board and educational costs, but I have no idea how generous it is and if it has to be the same amount in all schools.

1

dylans 1 year, 11 months ago

6 hours a day times 15 dollars an hour times 250 days times 4 years minus money paid (ie scholarship) = -$10,000 on a $100,000 scholarship. So if the universities start paying the players, the athletes should leaving owing only $10,000 for their education.

0

Jeremy Bolinger 1 year, 11 months ago

Since when are scholarships, as well as the ability to play basketball at a prestigious university like Kansas not enough? That's the problem with America. EVERYTHING IS MONEY DRIVEN! Spare me with the athletes don't get enough. Hell, most if not all of these athletes live a better life than I do, and I'm working full time to put myself through school. I don't want to hear it. Paying players will lead to a messy situation that will make rules even harder to follow. And trust me: You don't want to get into a bidding war for a high school athlete who thinks he knows his worth.

0

mojayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

A bidding war it would be. The "Have's" would have more and the "Have Not's" would miss the boat on recruiting. Can't imagine how it could keep the playing field level.

2

jhox 1 year, 11 months ago

You are absolutely right. As I see it, that's the big downside. Many programs already struggle to break even.

I'm all for compensating players. Anyone who has played a college sport knows that it is the equivalent of a full time job. There is no question the student athletes deserve to be compensated, but good luck making it work and keeping a level playing field.

0

bradh 1 year, 11 months ago

I think the biggest downside is what non-revenue sports do you cut to pay the kids. Most athletic budgets are in the red now, if you start paying the football players and basketball players, some other sport(s) have to go to pay for it. If you pay the 100 or so football and basketball players $2,000 apiece that's $200,000 you have to come up with - so do we drop the tennis program, volleyball, swimming (wait, we've already dropped that sport), ...?

The next problem you have is who do you pay. I'm guessing just the revenue producing sports, which for most schools is just football, for us it would also include men's basketball. You then get into a problem of only the male athletes are getting money and that will likely cause problems.

Title IX will also mean that the men's non-revenue sports which, have already been the most penalized (i.e. wiped out) by Title IX, would likely bear the brunt of any cuts.

0

Steve Gantz 1 year, 11 months ago

Generally when you introduce a new payout to people it introduces new ways of cheating. There was no welfare fraud before welfare, no medicaid fraud before there was medicaid. The love of money is the root of all evil and that love will lead to new evils.

0

daytonahawk2 1 year, 11 months ago

The unintended consequence is that many other athletic programs at the university will be scuttled.

Because of Title Nine all athletes in all sports will have to be paid, probably at the same rate. Most universities would likely feel pressure to end none revenue generating sports.

There is precedent for paying students who provide a service to the university through work study programs. Still, paying athletes would change college athletics from top to bottom in ways people might not have yet considered.

0

jaydoc06 1 year, 11 months ago

The amount of money that a 4 (or 5) year college education costs is nothing to disregard, and ought not to be forgotten by everyone on both sides of this debate. For most, student loans make up the vast majority of funds that pay for higher education. When accounting for 30 years worth of loan repayment, and accrued interest on that principal, this can add to be an astronomical sum of money.

In addition, with the exponential increase in earning power and potential that can be had by having a college degree, I'd say these athletes are receiving more than their fair share for 1-5 years of playing college sports.

0

REHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

So long as the NBA maintains the OAD rule, I would suggest that no freshman athlete be paid more than is currently proffered. Second year players could be entitled to a significant increase in "pocket money." Then subsequent smaller jumps for 3rd and 4th year players. Provide more comfort level for the likes of Jeff, Travis, Elijah, upperclass players who could earn over $100,000 playing in the European Leagues right now, but who have chosen to remain in the collegiate program for 4 or 5 seasons.

1

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

REHawk,

I really like your measured approach as an incremental, transitional step toward paying the players what they are worth. It circumspectly recognizes that all domestic sides in this issue have massive sunk costs in maintaining the status quo of asymmetric distribution of net cash benefits away from student athletes. It uses the European league as both a real, and a symbolic, "other" that should encourage all domestic sides (NBA, NCAA, NABC, ESPN/CBS/Fox, the media-gaming complex, and the ShoeCo-Summer Game-Agency Complex) of the grid-locked, asymmetric status quo to compromise their interests in favor of players, so as to prevent risk of long term loss of control of global marketing of the game to Euro leagues and inevitable Asian and African leagues to come. I am expanding on your proposal to call others' attentions to the nuances of its fit into the complex context of college basketball in particular. This dog should hunt, if Self and his "right way" alliance hear it, grasp it, and advance it. Everyone saves face here. It threatens no one's long term solvency, or agenda. It marginalizes no one, but it does subtlely lay a first incremental step of ground work for the universities, regardless of who ultimately controls the universities through the backdoor of the athletic department, to recover significant control of their own game.

You should have been a Dept. of State diplomat.

Rock Chalk!!!

1

Jack Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

REHawk -- Remember, Title IX baloney is going to dictate that women be treated the same as men. And that means everyone will get the same treatment from the golf team, to basketball, to field hockey, to football. Legislating "fairness" penalizes the achievers, and the achievers here are the ones with marketable skills that generate money.

3

andersonalex 1 year, 11 months ago

Personally I can't believe that preventing students athletes from commercializing their skills is not illegal. I would have thought countless lawsuits would have been successful against this practice.

Students in other majors are allowed to use their training to earn money, both in and out of the school. It is in fact encouraged. If a musician on scholarship becomes well known, there is nothing that prevents her from making a load of money off of song sales.

1

Stan Unruh 1 year, 11 months ago

These student athletes already receive so much more than a typical student. The schools also create "earning" opportunities to give them additional walking around money. They don't need to give them more. Some kids may not have the fancy phone or the latest computer but they have so much with their schooling, athletic department clothing, training table meals, and a lot we never see.

0

Jack Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

Summarizing many of the points above and adding a few, this seems to be the lay of the land:

  1. The student athlete is entering into a contract. He can turn down the contract and not play sports in college, or he can accept the contract. The contract says he doesn't get paid in cash.

  2. Part of the contract is getting (in most instances) tuition, books, room, clothing, tutoring, bus pass, and meals paid for.

  3. Title IX would certainly require that the 5th female rower on the rowing team get exactly the same about as the star quarterback, if athletes were "paid."

  4. The universities and the NCAA has assumed all of the financial risk in this venture, has built facilities, has created programs, and has created the system (business) to bring in the revenue.

  5. The system permits athletes to have the oppurtunity to gain a valuable commodity -- an education. The education's value in terms of dollars both in actual cost and then in lifetime benefit is clearly in the six figures, if not seven figures.

  6. The revenue sports create opportunities for countless others in non-revenue (Olympic) sports, that permit a board range of athletes to gain full or partial scholarships. They also support many other university functions, research, and scholarships unrelated to sports.

  7. Athletes have no basis for any lawsuits. This is proven by the simple fact that none have succeeded. And we know, if there is a valid lawsuit out there, a lawyer would sniff it out.

  8. The top athlete, after college, does not provide compensation to the university for his multi-million dollar contracts that far exceed the dollar value of the education. Nor does the athlete who goes on to become a high paid executive with his education.

  9. The bargain .. the deal .. does not involve monetary compensation. However, athletes are free to negotiate. Meaning, nothing is stopping them from banding together, forming a union, or another organization, to change the bargain/deal.

(cont)

1

Mike Bratisax 1 year, 11 months ago

You must have been one hell of a debater when you matriculated through Kansas.

0

Jack Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

(cont)

  1. The arguments regarding "spending money" ignore the plight of the normal student who goes thousands in debt, has no scholarship, must work while in school, etc. We are really losing perspective if our biggest concern is whether an athlete on full scholarship has enough money to buy a pizza.

  2. The athletes that are really put in tough spots are the athletes in lesser sports that receive partial scholarships, can't work, yet don't have all of their expenses paid for. Baseball, for example -- my son being on a partial scholarship now in baseball -- may only have 10 - 12 scholarships for a full team. Those are divided up among a roster of the max of 27 scholarship players, as determined by the coach. Such is the case in most male, non-revenue sports. Many kids decline to play because they can't do it financially. That's a choice. Females get more full scholarships because the NCAA has created rules (to comply with Title IX) that balance against the 85 football scholarships (not fully). For example, women's basketball gets 15 scholarships to men's 13 (did you know that?). The NCAA will not permit colleges to shift some of the 85 football scholarships to other men's sports.

  3. Remember, if there is no NCAA, no college athletics, these kids don't get athletic scholarships. The tendency to support the little guy .. the poor athlete .. makes one lose sight of the entire structure of the system. As in business, if there are no employers, there are no jobs. It's easy to make the rich guy .. the NCAA .. the enemy. But without the rich guy, there are no jobs, there are no scholarships, there is no system. As with the rest of society in general, this is a free country. If you don't like it, don't participate. The athlete is more easily replaced in the system than is the system itself. But if the top 200 football players said they weren't going to play NCAA football, perhaps the power balance shifts a bit. And there's nothing stopping that from happening, is there?

1

Jack Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

I don't know. But my son, for example, has to "volunteer" at multiple university functions. He has to work for free at football games, volleyball games, etc. Further, the coach makes them "volunteer" at other outside events, wherein I'm quite sure that the baseball program gets the financial benefit. So not only does he put in all his time on the field, weight room, etc., he provides free labor to the university and to the baseball program.

But with all of the stuff as part of the scholarship, we have very little out of our pockets but for a little spending money.

I'm wondering if anyone knows .. does the NCAA prohibit a kid who is on scholarship from getting a student loan? Meaning, why couldn't Jeff Withey borrow $2000 per year on a student loan (like most of the rest of the college population)? I don't know if that's permitted. Maybe the loan has to be tied to school items specifically, for which he has all provided for free.

0

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

If I recall correctly, Lance Thomas of Duke reputedly got a $75K loan, or something like that, for some jewelry.

I don't know if student loans go that high though. :-)

0

Theodore Thadogweadore 1 year, 11 months ago

EliteForm bows to the greatness of Coach Hudy!

0

jhox 1 year, 11 months ago

Who cares what K State trolls think?

0

oldalum 1 year, 11 months ago

They say that anyway, and would still say it if he came out against paying players.

0

Danny Hernandez 1 year, 11 months ago

Will every student-athlete receive the identical amount of money? That will always be an issue imho

0

milehighhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Players should be paid - not much, but a few grand seems fair for the major sports.

I think the reasons for paying athletes in revenue sports are simply better. There is discussion that it would put smaller schools in a tight spot - I agree, but would argue this is inevitable. Between conference realignment and the staggering amount of revenue brought in from TV deals, there is already a substantial difference in the amount of revenue schools have. Maybe what is needed is an honest assessment & a move to say "these 100 schools" or "these six conferences" are going to pay athletes because of the ridiculous amount of money being made off them in TV contracts.

Which brings me to the issue of fairness. My thoughts on this have shifted over the years. I used to think athletes shouldn't make money because they are on scholarship, already get free gear, etc -- and (as a former KU debater) I have sympathy for other kids who represent the University and don't get a tenth of the recognition of the major sports. But at the same time, the market has spoken. People don't pay millions of dollars to watch college debate or college golf, but for football and basketball? Gladly.

For the NCAA to fall back on the "amateurism" ideal is shameful. Absolutely everyone is making money off these kids, from people in the athletics department to coaches to universities themselves: Studies have shown upticks in enrollment following national championships & bowl games in basketball and football. Don't forget about the jerseys too -- just glance at all the #5 jerseys on Campanile before games and think for a minute about how much was made off Todd Reesing -- and he'll never see a dime from playing the sport. And of course, the DVD sales and EA Sports video games that bear his image and likeness...That isn't right.

Finally, I think paying players could strengthen college sports overall. There is more of an incentive to stay in school and less of an incentive to become involved in shady activities. That few grand can make the difference between a player feeling there's no way he can go another year with family considerations (Cole Aldrich) and giving himself another year. That few grand can also make the difference between players having some small feeling that maybe the system is fair & believing they are getting screwed, so why not (Ohio State) sell or trade your stuff for a little pocket change.

It would be nice to pretend we still live in a Leave-It-To-Beaver environment in college athletics, but the influx of money in the last 10-20 years has completely altered the landscape. There need to be more advocates for the players since they are the product everyone wants, and right now they aren't getting a fair shake.

0

Jack Wilson 1 year, 11 months ago

Your post is well thought out. But it ignores most of the issues.

In reading it, I think you just ignore the freedom of choice elements here. Todd Reesing understood when accepted his scholarship what benefits he was receiving. Everyone knows they don't get paid for their images, # on jersey, etc. Even the top rated athlete.

Your argument is based on what you believe to be fundamental fairness. You say "that isn't right." What your post fails to do is address the counter arguments. See my post above. Why are the counter-arguments wrong? Is it right that McDonalds makes millions for shareholders on the backs of largely low paid workers? That argument goes on forever.

In your eyes, cash money defines that fairness. But to the point I made above .. how much is that scholarship and educational opportunity worth? Six figures. Sure. Seven figures. Maybe. And what if the top athlete earns multiple millions? Couldn't the NCAA, if it were to "pay" athletes, mandate that an athlete agree to pay the school 10% of all future earnings in the sport? If you say no, why not? Absurd probably. But the point is a contract is leverage. It's business. It's choice.

And you seem to think that an athlete won't want more money, if he's paid a small sum, citing the Ohio St. deal. That's ignores reality. Multi-millionaires commit fraud. There is always the desire for more. Federal prison farms all full of them.

What about the NCAA being the risk taker, owning the facilities, etc.? Your "it isn't fair" argument doesn't address that. What's fair for the NCAA and colleges?

You ask "why not (Ohio State) sell or trade your stuff for a little pocket change." Here's your answer -- it's against the rules. The rules the athlete agreed to.

0

Martin Rosenblum 1 year, 11 months ago

Two generations exist here.

Firstly, I have not studied or researched the beginings of athletic scholarships. But, I'm sure that the evolution started with the concept of a student being lured to a university/college to compete on a sports team so that the sports team would be competitive, end of concept. No looking ahead to life after competition on a university/college level by the student. There were precendents for one and done, two and dones, etc. If a student went to classes, however privileged they were to be in "jock-classes", and maintained a minimum GPA, he was allowed to continue playing his sport and attending classes. He wasn't interviewing agents, etc. for an early departure to a professional level until possibly his senior year.

Secondly, the present generation that exists finds the universities/colleges not having sacrificed their original concepts of the scholarhips to students to compete in their sports teams. However, little has changed to adjust for the early departures relative to how the scholarship programs are administered. So, the biggest change is in institutions that are allowing these students to compete on their professional teams. There lies the kettle of fish. The reforms and restrictions need to take place at a point within the NBA, NFL, etc. They will probably never completely join ranks with the NCAA to address an issue that is more centered within the NCAA world, such as pay-for-play. Some cooperation has taken place on certain issues that connect the two worlds (NCAA and NBA,etc.) But major revamping of the goals and objectives do not benefit the Pros as they do the universitites.

I have a concept of a sort of a developmental league that ties the NBA and NCAA together where the NBA funds universities in some part for facilities,etc. and the players must play for two years strictly as college players first before "graduating" to the developmental league that requires players to remain in college but compete for some sort of pecking order when it comes to draft time. This way, there isn't the automatic first round pool of players consisting of first year college players. During their playing time under the Dleague their individual accomplishments and productivity would be the deciding factors of their chances to move on to the Pros. Just a concept that is in the early stages in my mind. Feel free to pick it apart or throw it around.

0

Hurinfan 1 year, 11 months ago

Players do get paid. It is called a free education. They also receive money for books, food, room and board, tutors etc. Athletes are treated really well to play sports for a school. I would have no problem with a slightly larger stipend from their scholarship that every athlete receives but that is the extent of it and I wouldn't even consider that paying, just getting more money from their scholarship which many non-athlete scholarship students can take advantage of.

0

jgkojak 1 year, 11 months ago

I would only be in favor of paying players if -

1) The pay were the same for all players on every team within the same division of a sport -

so whether you go to Iona or St Mary's of Kansas, as a basketball player you receive the same amount of pay -- walk-ons should be paid this same amount.

I would consider a system where Freshmen get less, and progressively players are paid more to being a Senior -- could be a slight incentive for some kids to consider finishing their schooling instead of bolting too early for the NBA or Europe.

2) Classroom/graduation performance requirements remain unchanged.

In fact, if players are paid, then they should not have to work summer jobs or even work fewer camps, etc. meaning they should be able to make up classes more easily in summer school.

3) The NCAA life the ban on schools doing nice things for kids families (w/limits) or gives schools a "hardship" budget to implement.

What we can't have is Jeff Withey and Elijah Johnson paid more than Travis Releford or a Josh Selby being able to sell himself to the highest (Kentucky) bidder. At that point, we may as well ditch college ball altogether and just expand the pros.

1

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

An clear statement of your principled position. I am pro paying players, but am interested in exploring your POV too.

Question: under the present system, what should we do about the fact that under current rules of consideration received by scholarship athletes in D1, a player attending Duke, or Stanford, receives vastly more consideration than a player receives for attending KU, or UNC? Like wise what do we do about players attending schools receiving even less consideration for attending schools that cost less to attend the KU?

I do not mean to be argumentative. I mean to try to understand your thinking on this, so that I can assess your argument, which otherwise possesses significant credibility to me.

0

jgkojak 1 year, 11 months ago

Also-

If we pay players - no more one and done.

If players are getting paid - no reason for the NBA not to raise its draft age to 21 - you can be paid in college or paid in the NBA-DL.

1

Nathan Scholl 1 year, 11 months ago

Does anyone else think that it's a big deal that players get full scholarships? I'm 31 years old and I JUST finished paying off my student loans. That's a lot of money. I would have been insanely happy to have my tuition paid for! I don't like that an EDUCATION at a good school is being treated like it doesn't mean squat. The majority of these players don't go to the NBA and won't be rich from the sport. An education is paramount and should be treated as such for their future. That being said, I do think the amount of money being made off of these sports and too be fair, the athletes, is a little much, maybe they should get a percentage of that, but just enough to buy things for day to day life, help their families, etc... I'm afraid if they get paid an exorbitant amount of money, they won't care about school, will stop going to class, go buy a bunch of stupid things with their money (let's not forget, these are 17-22 year old BOYS with a lot of the time, little to no common sense) and get into trouble. I guess that's not for us to decide, but if you have a one and done player that knows he's going to the NBA (or thinks he is a la Josh Selby, etc..), the player could just make money and not go to class for their final semester. Obviously, some rules would have to be enforced, no pay if you don't go to class, etc...I just don't like that money is seeping into everything in our culture. Root of all evil...money hungry....

2

REHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Some terrific posts appeared today to discuss this issure. I am chuckling at the simplicity of my early morning post. Flogging myself more than somewhat for coming across as a simpleton. That said, I still feel that upperclassmen should benefit more from any increase in spending monies...if such increases ever should become a done deal. One and done "student players" have little need of increased benefits. If wise, they will make the most of the free classes provided; but I wager that nearly half of them place little emphasis on second semester course work. As a sidenote, I am curious about the amount of pocket money (for laundry, etc.) that is already legistaled for Div. 1 NCAA athletes on full scholarship. Do all recipients in all sports receive the same as Perry or Jeff?

0

kufaninmo 1 year, 11 months ago

if it eventually becomes legal, does Michigan get to put their banners back up?

0

aerohawk 1 year, 11 months ago

I was in ROTC on a full scholarship during my years at KU. In addition to paying my tuition, the scholarship provided a monthly stipend. The stipend increased each year of school and as a senior I think I was getting $400 a month (it is currently $500 a month for a senior). I would spend about 20 hours a week on ROTC "stuff". In the summer I would get about twice that per month to go do training.

These facts aren't exactly relevant to this discussion but it is what comes to my mind when the topic of paying athletes comes up.

0

REHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Did the ROTC scholarship also cover your room and board?

0

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

First, I want to praise Bill Self for hopefully starting what will in coming years become a distinguished and respected series of Lectures and Panels on College Sports in America to be held by his Foundation. This would be a valuable and enduring contribution to College Sports and would be timely and vitally important as College Sports negotiate the next stages of College Sports becoming bigger and bigger and bigger business caught up in the tug of war between many private parties trying to get control of College Sports.

Second, this move by Self is yet another instance in which one has to at least make a try at understanding the larger context in which Self is announcing his changed POV on paying players and assembling a panel discussion on this issue among other issues in college sports.

The context is one in which elements within the ShoeCo-Summer Game-Agency Complex have apparently been gaining increasing influence over high school age talent under recruitment by D1 basketball programs. This influence appears now to extend to biasing which programs an increasing number of players will likely select.

But there is a deeper and more troubling issue. With the apparent possible ability to bias where certain recruits will sign, certain elements within the ShoeCo-Summer Game-Agency Complex appear able to create alliances with certain coaches/schools, and perhaps even influence which coaches are hired at certain schools, by being able to annoint certain schools with more talent than others.

This situation is also a slippery slope that would not necessarily stop with the capacity for influencing coach selection at D1 programs.

Such influence could possibly extend to influencing AD selection, and at the end of an unchecked slide down this slope perhaps even selection of Chancellors.

Self has seen Norm Roberts reputedly black listed and denied talent at St. Johns. Yours truly wonders if something similar occurred to another Self assistant, Billy Gillispie at UK, and perhaps again at TTech.

In a context like this, if this description of the context were fitting, then universities and their private not for profit athletic departments paying players might be an attempt to offset the incentives reputedly offered the players by elements of the ShoeCo-Summer Game-Agency Complex and so might serve to increase the control of the Universities and their athletic departments over the recruiting process.

Maybe.

We are still only looking at the tip of the ice berg of this issue, IMHO.

But Coach Self is taking a very brave first step IMHO.

Rock Chalk, Bill Self!

0

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

"On KU Football"

~Recommended bumper sticker: Stick with Weis for 5.

~A 52-7 beating by OU means nothing, considering Weis felt he had to run a third of Gill's returning players to start over, which most knowledgeable fans seem to agree he needed to do. Getting slaughtered by OU meant nothing just as getting slaughtered by KSU meant nothing. Same as getting slaughtered by Texas will mean nothing.

~The Okie State game mattered. It was a game against a better team that KU hung close with. Any game KU stays within two touch downs of this season is a "moral victory" and moral victories matter during the first two years of a rebuild, maybe even the first three years. Foundation laying doesn't win games. Foundation laying prepares for games to be won. Period.

~Don't let Coach Weis be used as a broom. Its the oldest trick in any administrator's book. Clean up the mistake with a broom. Then replace the broom. Don't let it happen, KU fans. It will cost KU athletics, and in particular KU basketball, tons in donation dollars that could better be spent on improved recruiting infrastructure for all KU sports. Don't even think about buying out Coach Weis' contract early. He can turn it around. it will just take 3-5 years; that's all.

~Coach Weis was right to throw only one freshman quarterback to the dogs against OU. For god's sakes you don't make a bad situation worse, by replacing an inexperienced QB, with a QB with less talent and less experience. Putting Crist in, no matter how badly he may have performed, was the right move. A coach has to stick to the game preparation plan. Weis prepared one new guy to start, and prepared Crist to come in if that failed. And it was the sensible thing to do. One green quarterback given a try a game is about all a team can possibly stand.

~Don't fault Coach Weis for making the right moves against a top team that kicked KU's butt. Butt kickings are part of rebuilding. Get used to it. And start learning to look for improvement in the little things, the fundamentals like blocking assigments in the lines, angles of pursuit in the linebackers, lead blocks for the running backs, coverages not breaking under certain circumstances, etc. All coverages with inferior athletes break eventually. The question is are the KU players keeping coverages from breaking, when they shouldn't, when the OU coaches don't isolate a great player on one of KU's lesser players? This is what this season was always going to be about, from the moment the change was made.

0

jaybate 1 year, 11 months ago

~Coach Weis was right to shift the focus onto the special teams, where you guys that can run doing what they are told and occassionally making big plays, without making busted plays. Special teams is a place where a team without much talent can be expected to hold its own. KU's specialty teams didn't vs. OU. If the special teams had executed well, then the game would have been 36-7 and there would have been the second straight moral victory. This is something that can be accomplished for next week.

~Cummings and Crist are the logical choices for the next 2-3 games. If Cummings doesn't get better, then Taty and Crist maybe on for the next three. Weis has to use Crist part of the time. Crist is the only QB he has that can throw some of the routes that Weis' offense needs to show the defense to make Sims viable on the ground, whether or not Crist is immobile and not executing. Weis' offense needs those kinds of routes run, or Weis would not have brought Crist in at all this season.

~Coach Weis is taking some serious lumps at the hands of Mangino's old friends; that's to be expected in football. Snyder and Stoops don't like the way Mangino got treated by KU. They have good teams. They are sticking it to Weis, just like they stuck it to Gill. Nothing personal. Just kicking a program while its down, in hopes of keeping it from becoming a viable recruiting competitor.

~This turn-around thing takes years. And it involves playing through old grudges Coach Weis had nothing to do with. Coach Weis probably ran into the same kind of thing at Notre Dame. Notre Dame had built up a list of enemies dreaming of pay back a mile long, when he took over ND at a down period. Coach Weis took the lumps like a mensch with a shamrock and kept doing his professional best for ND. The Fathers gave up on Weis too soon. Weis needs the full five years at KU. Give them to him.

~Stick with Weis for 5!

~Rock Chalk, Coach Weis.

0

danmoore 1 year, 11 months ago

I completely agree. My bumper sticker reads Retire Snyder. Hope that happens within five years.

0

REHawk 1 year, 11 months ago

jb, I agree with much of what you have written here. Why not post it on the football article rather than in the hoops section? Many basketball posters care not a whit for pigskin concerns, other than their effect on hoops recruiting or overall financial distributions within Jayhawk Athletics.

1

HawkKlaw 1 year, 11 months ago

Another common sense stance from Bill Self?! Why am I not surprised?

Of course the student-athletes playing high revenue-generating sports should be paid for bringing in that much money to the school. I don't care about the legality of it as much as I care about people being treated fairly. It only seems right that if someone is helping the NCAA earn a bunch of money, the NCAA should help that person out financially in return. I know student athletes already get scholarships, but this is way bigger money that we're talking about here.

Also, student athletes already get paid under the table in a variety of ways. This would help level the playing field for coaches that do everything by the book.

And this would also ensure that those players who are on the fence about whether or not to turn pro would have a legitimate reason to stay in college. They would get paid exceptionally well (for a student) and they would still be working towards a degree.

Sure, it would take a lot of sorting out to get things in motion, but the under-the-table out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach gives certain schools a strong advantage over other schools that don't take as many risks. I don't see this happening though, mainly because of greed and entitlement on behalf of NCAA officials.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.