College basketball corruption charges


This shows a lack of understanding economics. Groundskeepers are in fact compensated exactly what they’re worth to an organization based on the value they provide. Every single economist would tell you that. If they were more valuable they could walk up to their boss and demand higher wages and the boss would have to say yes. That’s how the free market works. But a groundskeeper is replaceable, so they’re not going to be compensated as well. It’s supply and demand, it’s cost vs benefit. The reason LeBron makes 50 million dollars a year is because LeBron provides that value. The reason a groundskeeper makes 30k is because he provides that value. No LeBron = millions lost, but if the groundskeeper up and quits they’ll hire another individual and won’t miss a step.


This is my position in this matter totally. Now if the NCAA wants to allow players to profit from outside sources then there should be a system where they must contribute or pay for their scholarship. This pay college players thing would create a big cluster f ck of problems. If you don’t like the college rules then go pro. This is the main issue. Let these kids go if they think they have the ability and let college be college.


And what do you propose the schools that barely get any money or lose money annually use to pay their non replaceable players with?

And in the almost 15 years of the NCAA with a one and done rule this has not happened. Interesting! Meanwhile, in the professional leagues that do get paid there has been an uncountable amount of strikes.

I’ll say it again, every athlete has every chance to do research and decide whether or not pursuing their goals through the NCAA is worth it or not. There are other options. If you’re going to say that those other options don’t give as much visibility then you have to add the visibility that schools/the NCAA give to athletes to the value of the scholarship along with the degree and the food and the housing and the auto-job connections available.


I’ve never said the NCAA should pay players.

What I don’t understand is why people support an organization that forever has exploited athletes to make billions of dollars for themselves only to control everything they do. Makes little sense to me why that’s acceptable.


No comment on the contradiction you created for yourself after saying that the free market decides things and if a worker deserves more they can easily walk up and demand what they want? No response to the fact that this hasn’t happened in college athletics? After your numerous attacks claiming I don’t know anything about econ I find that quite interesting.


I would hardly call it embarrassing. They need legitimate representation. Players union makes the most sense to me. On the 40 person rules and regs committees, athletes represent exactly 4 of the individuals. Yet athletes consist of a majority of the people that participate in any capacity in the NCAA. It’s stupid.


By all means, take your groundskeeper example to an economics professor and let me know if they agree.


So no response. Again, very interesting.


Do you know what the graduation rate, nationally, for scholarship athletes is vs. general students? Hint: it’s not good.

That’s my point: a good number of these kids aren’t getting an actual college education.

I was a (non-Revenue) scholarship athlete at Michigan. I count a few football and basketball players from Michigan as friends now, over a decade later. To a man, they aren’t particularly complementary of the educational opportunity they were afforded.


I’d like to see the average net worth of a college basketball and football athlete who didn’t go pro vs the average net worth of similarly aged people from that athlete’s neighborhood. Gotta be hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of value on average that the school gives them.


I bet Tim Drevno is worth millions more than the kids he grew up with.


How in the world were they not complementary of the opportunity? Whether they choose to try hard and make the most of their education is a choice that every student makes, not just athletes. ANY student at Michigan has almost unlimited opportunity, I find it rather ridiculous and incredibly spoiled and entitled not to appreciate the opportunity given to them.


Then find it ridiculous.

As I said - they largely were not helped to study/learn what the wanted, and shuttled into BGS by their academic advisors (there are exceptions). A number also needed a fifth year to finish their degree due to the time commitment of football, and needed to finish their degrees at other (cheaper) schools they could afford - so their diplomas aren’t from Michigan.

And this isn’t addressing the chronic injuries the football players (none of whom played pro) have before their 40th birthdays.

And so yeah - maybe their middle classish lives are better than a number of kids they grew up with. They aren’t ANYTHING compared to like, The deputy director of communications for the athletic department.


And just to make things clear, some fake news has been thrown around, the graduation rate of NCAA student athletes is up to 87%. Over 75% for both football and basketball. Low rates were a major issue so they’ve taken successful steps to improve that by over 10% since the issues were made a big deal.

I mean… are you kidding? This is 1000% a choice with known risks that they choose to pursue.


So it’s 12% worse.

I think we clearly have different politics. Safe to say - “CTE” isn’t something kids knew about when I was 18.


But it’s clearly something that they know about now, so unless you plan on paying PAST athletes for their time I really fail to see how a lack of CTE research in the past is at all relevant to today’s athletes.

Do you care to cite your source that non-athletes have a 99% graduation rate? That seems rather fake.


It’s become clear from being on this forum you will argue about something you know nothing about. Whether that’s a player you’ve never seen in your life or a subject you know nothing about. This article on cost benefit analysis should help…

The reason why agents pay players and coaches arrange deals to make these things happen is because the benefit of doing so outweighs the cost. The reason college coaches get paid millions of dollars while their bosses get paid a fraction of that is because the value (benefit) they bring is greater than the cost. The reason college athletics is a thing is because the benefit outweighs the cost. The reason a groundskeeper doesn’t get paid well, because the benefit of the groundskeeper is not worth a cost of 100k. Why? Because they’re so easily replaced. Why doesn’t a 2 star athlete get money from bag men and agents? Because they don’t provide enough benefit to outweigh the cost.

This will be my last response, no point in further discussing it when you don’t have any intention of actually have a rational discussion.


Woof, the ad hominems really are never ending with you. Pretty bad way to try to convince others that you’re right.

I’ll ask you one more time, if you don’t answer then I have my answer. If, as you say, the salary of employees is determined as fair by the market and employees not being paid a just sum results in this:

which of course makes sense, then why has that not happened in college athletics? Could it be because, gasp, the athletes are compensated with a fair value? Your comment implies that.


You’re talking all athletes. I’m talking Revenue athletes. Michigan’s graduation rate overall is 90% (google “Michigan Graduation rate”). Compare that with your figure for football.


Do you know what the graduation rate, nationally, for scholarship athletes is vs. general students? Hint: it’s not good.That’s my point: a good number of these kids aren’t getting an actual college education.

Of course it’s lower. First, scholarship athletes generally have worse academic credentials to begin with, so logic would dictate they don’t graduate at the same rate - especially given the demands on their time. Absent academic fraud, some are not going to survive academically.

Second, a lot of athletes turn professional in their sports, for which a degree is not required. If non-athletes had these kinds of career options, many of them would leave without graduating, too.

I think it’s still in the best interests of any athlete to complete his/her degree requirements, since you don’t know how long the athletic career will last, but for some I can understand the desire to strike while the iron’s hot. And of course, some do come back later to graduate, but they aren’t included in the graduation rate if they don’t graduate within six years of enrollment.