If you oppose paying college athletes, you might be a racist.

Racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes. Here’s the evidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/30/race-affects-opinions-about-whether-college-athletes-should-be-paid-heres-how/

Could some of that gap grow from racism?

Could racial prejudice also affect attitudes toward paying college athletes? There are good reasons to believe that it could.

According to NCAA data from 2014, blacks constitute the majority of players in college football and basketball, the two sports that most people think of when they think of college athletics. Given this reality, it would be strange if questions about paying college athletes did not conjure up images of young black men in the minds of survey respondents.

To find out whether racial prejudice influences white opinion on paying college athletes, we conducted a survey of opinions on “pay for play” policies using the 2014 CCES.In a statistical analysis that controlled for a host of other influences, we found this:
Negative racial views about blacks were the single most important predictor of white opposition to paying college athletes.

The more negatively a white respondent felt about blacks, the more they opposed paying college athletes.

To check our findings’ validity, we also conducted an experiment. Before we asked white respondents whether college athletes should be paid, we showed one group pictures of young black men with stereotypical African American first and last names. We showed another group no pictures at all.

As you can see in the figure below, whites who were primed by seeing pictures of young black men were significantly more likely to say they opposed paying college athletes. Support dropped most dramatically among whites who expressed the most resent towards blacks as a group.

From an article I read this year:

"Out of 6,225 freshmen entering Michigan in the fall of 2013, there were only 282 Latinos, 246 African-Americans, and seven Native Americans. Dartmouth, an extremely selective Ivy League college in a small New Hampshire town, has double the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its student body."

I wonder how many of those minorties at UofM were only able to qualify because of an athletic scholarship.

I don't get why anyone is opposed to paying these kids a stipend anyway. Race has nothing to do with it. They bring in millions. Way more than their scholarship. We're addicted to their talent and the game. They're employees of the university imo and way under paid.

DWags wrote:I don't get why anyone is opposed to paying these kids a stipend anyway. Race has nothing to do with it. They bring in millions. Way more than their scholarship. We're addicted to their talent and the game. They're employees of the university imo and way under paid.

Couldn't agree more, but I do think race has something to do with it. Most of these big universities bring in poor african americans that wouldn't be able to qualify (Duke, UofM, Harvard, Notre Dame, etc) , put them in watered down classes, give them a second rate education and pay them with a scholarship while making tons of cash off of them.

As outlined above, most of the African Americans wouldn't be able to attend UofM or afford UofM without being an athlete, but once they can make the school tons of money they'll be accepted to their general studies programs and compensated with free tuition.

The whole thing is a racket, I still love it though. Also, I can't stand Jay Bilas, but his quote in that article is spot on.

Regarding the study, I know a bunch of people that I don't think are racist that believe a scholarship is enough for the athletes so not sure I buy their results.

steveschneider wrote:From an article I read this year:

"Out of 6,225 freshmen entering Michigan in the fall of 2013, there were only 282 Latinos, 246 African-Americans, and seven Native Americans. Dartmouth, an extremely selective Ivy League college in a small New Hampshire town, has double the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its student body."

I wonder how many of those minorties at UofM were only able to qualify because of an athletic scholarship.

https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t9211-black-males-on-athletic-scholarship

DWags wrote:I don't get why anyone is opposed to paying these kids a stipend anyway. Race has nothing to do with it. They bring in millions. Way more than their scholarship. We're addicted to their talent and the game. They're employees of the university imo and way under paid.

You're not going to like the outcome of that classification.

Turtleneck wrote:

steveschneider wrote:From an article I read this year:

"Out of 6,225 freshmen entering Michigan in the fall of 2013, there were only 282 Latinos, 246 African-Americans, and seven Native Americans. Dartmouth, an extremely selective Ivy League college in a small New Hampshire town, has double the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its student body."

I wonder how many of those minorties at UofM were only able to qualify because of an athletic scholarship.

https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t9211-black-males-on-athletic-scholarship

DWags wrote:I don't get why anyone is opposed to paying these kids a stipend anyway. Race has nothing to do with it. They bring in millions. Way more than their scholarship. We're addicted to their talent and the game. They're employees of the university imo and way under paid.

You're not going to like the outcome of that classification.

Has nothing to do with paying these guys what they're worth. If they ever organized and walked out for a year, we'd all go crazy.

If they truly are not employees of the university, lets only accept those kids who qualify under normal standards. Then I'd say, scholarship is good enough. If we bend our standards at all, they are not students as much as employees.

Turtleneck wrote:

steveschneider wrote:From an article I read this year:

"Out of 6,225 freshmen entering Michigan in the fall of 2013, there were only 282 Latinos, 246 African-Americans, and seven Native Americans. Dartmouth, an extremely selective Ivy League college in a small New Hampshire town, has double the percentage of underrepresented minorities in its student body."

I wonder how many of those minorties at UofM were only able to qualify because of an athletic scholarship.

https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t9211-black-males-on-athletic-scholarship

DWags wrote:I don't get why anyone is opposed to paying these kids a stipend anyway. Race has nothing to do with it. They bring in millions. Way more than their scholarship. We're addicted to their talent and the game. They're employees of the university imo and way under paid.

You're not going to like the outcome of that classification.

5.1% pretty shocked it's that high at MSU. At UofM I bet that number is 10-15%.

9.6% at UM. It's in the article.

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t9211-black-males-on-athletic-scholarship




You're not going to like the outcome of that classification.

Has nothing to do with paying these guys what they're worth. If they ever organized and walked out for a year, we'd all go crazy.

If they truly are not employees of the university, lets only accept those kids who qualify under normal standards. Then I'd say, scholarship is good enough. If we bend our standards at all, they are not students as much as employees.

I'm fine with that.

How many of these guys would be able to pay taxes after they've blown all the money on women and bar tabs...I prefer them to be paid under the table in a hush hush sort of way

CORNER BLITZ wrote:How many of these guys would be able to pay taxes after they've blown all the money on women and bar tabs...I prefer them to be paid under the table in a hush hush sort of way

This is a good idea.

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

Has nothing to do with paying these guys what they're worth. If they ever organized and walked out for a year, we'd all go crazy.

If they truly are not employees of the university, lets only accept those kids who qualify under normal standards. Then I'd say, scholarship is good enough. If we bend our standards at all, they are not students as much as employees.

I'm fine with that.

You know, I think most people would be. If every school agreed to it and stuck with it, I'd love that. A side effect is it would be better for high schools and these kids and it would get the slime of aau away.

Untill that happens, these kids are employees in my mind. They are worth billions to the university and surrounding businesses in the towns. I have no problem with a couple grand a month stipend.

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I'm fine with that.

You know, I think most people would be. If every school agreed to it and stuck with it, I'd love that. A side effect is it would be better for high schools and these kids and it would get the slime of aau away.

Untill that happens, these kids are employees in my mind. They are worth billions to the university and surrounding businesses in the towns. I have no problem with a couple grand a month stipend.

I'd love it if Duke, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Cal Berkely, UNC, etc. would only accept athletes that could qualify for those schools.

It'll never happen though, it's time to stop wishing for things that will never happen and do the right thing which is give these athletes better compensation.

steveschneider wrote:

DWags wrote:

You know, I think most people would be. If every school agreed to it and stuck with it, I'd love that. A side effect is it would be better for high schools and these kids and it would get the slime of aau away.

Untill that happens, these kids are employees in my mind. They are worth billions to the university and surrounding businesses in the towns. I have no problem with a couple grand a month stipend.

I'd love it if Duke, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Cal Berkely, UNC, etc. would only accept athletes that could qualify for those schools.

It'll never happen though, it's time to stop wishing for things that will never happen and do the right thing which is give these athletes better compensation.

Stanford does and they've proven they can be very competitive in both sports. It's rare though.

I don't opposed paying them but I am definitely a total racist. What does that mean?

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I'm fine with that.

You know, I think most people would be.  If every school agreed to it and stuck with it, I'd love that. A side effect is it would be better for high schools and these kids and it would get the slime of aau away.  

Untill that happens, these kids are employees in my mind. They are worth billions to the university and surrounding businesses in the towns.  I have no problem with a couple grand a month stipend.

I do not have a problem with a stipend, and players are being paid a stipend now. However, a stipend is not the same as paying players their market value.

As for their market value, I do not even know how you make that kind of determination. What goes into that calculation? Beyond that, most schools do not have revenue generating athletics programs. The big money in college sports is generated by a few rather than the many. What kind of revenue does CMU generate to pay players? WMU? EMU? There is a huge disparity between power and non-power conference schools, and even within the power conferences. Outside of that, how do you deal with the value of individual players on the same team? The QB and his LT are both vital to the success of the team, but few people are buying jerseys with the LT's name. Does that mean the QB, since he has a greater value, gets paid more? Are schools going to have to negotiate individual contracts with each player, or will there be a union that negotiates pay by position and class? None of this is what college athletics are supposed to be about.

One thing the article glosses over is the actual value of a scholarship. It is worth more than the value of tuition.  While I think this number is inflated, it gets you thinking there is more to a scholarship that tuition. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm

DWags wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

I'd love it if Duke, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Cal Berkely, UNC, etc. would only accept athletes that could qualify for those schools.

It'll never happen though, it's time to stop wishing for things that will never happen and do the right thing which is give these athletes better compensation.

Stanford does and they've proven they can be very competitive in both sports. It's rare though.

I give a ton of props to Stanford, but I do believe they lower the bar in some cases.

Harrison Barnes had a 3.6 and had offers from Duke, UCLA and Stanford. Saw an article once with Tommy Amaker and he said that athletes like Harrison Barnes are the type he'd like to lure to Harvard.

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

You know, I think most people would be.  If every school agreed to it and stuck with it, I'd love that. A side effect is it would be better for high schools and these kids and it would get the slime of aau away.  

Untill that happens, these kids are employees in my mind. They are worth billions to the university and surrounding businesses in the towns.  I have no problem with a couple grand a month stipend.

I do not have a problem with a stipend, and players are being paid a stipend now. However, a stipend is not the same as paying players their market value.

As for their market value, I do not even know how you make that kind of determination. What goes into that calculation? Beyond that, schools do not have revenue generating athletics programs. The big money in college sports is generated by a few rather than the many. What kind of revenue does CMU generate to pay players? WMU? EMU? There is huge disparity between power and non-power conference schools, and even within schools in power conferences. Outside of that, how do you deal with the value of individual players on the same team? The QB and his LT are both vital to the success of the team, but few people are buying jerseys with the LT's name. Does that mean the QB, since he has a greater value, gets paid more? Are schools going to have to negotiate individual contracts with each player, or will there be a union that negotiates pay by positions and class? None of this is what college athletics are supposed to be about.

One thing the article glosses over is the actual value of a scholarship. It is worth more than the value of tuition.  While I think this number is inflated, it gets you thinking there is more to a scholarship that tuition. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm

Not only is there the issue of worth, there is also the issue of taxes and medical benefits. If you pay them, then does their scholarship become a part of their taxable income? If so, then do academic scholarships also become taxable income? Also, the NCAA's policy is that players must have medical insurance. Some of the bigger schools provide complete medical coverage for some of their student athletes, but many don't. In addition, there are waivers in many people's insurance policies that don't cover injuries from playing varsity level college sports. Many families have been bankrupted by medical bills resulting from injuries. I would expect that a school like MSU fully covers at least the football, basketball, and hockey players, but do they cover the non-revenue sports? I don't know.

I'm not in favor of paying athletes because I think they derive enough benefits already and gives them an opportunity they might otherwise not have. However, I think they should at least be given medical coverage and some type of catastrophic injury insurance should they suffer a career ending injury. That catastrophic policy would cover their remaining tuition, room, and board as well as medical costs for rehab and any special needs that result from the injury. I know that some athletes with real NFL prospects have their own Lloyd's of London custom insurance policies to cover them in the event that an injury ruins them, but the vast majority don't.

Anyway, there's a lot of issues around this idea of paying college athletes, and there are many models to choose from as a basis, but I think the issues are very complex and make any lines drawn very arbitrary. When you have arbitrary lines of demarcation, it's generally bad law that leads to overly complex and arbitrary regulatory issues and unintended consequences.

I am not sure the authors grasp the complexity of the issue. As evidenced by their study there are plenty of people that oppose paying players based on race. However, to assert, "the discussion about paying college athletes is implicitly a discussion about race" is rather heavy handed. As you mention, it is a complex issue. It's so complex the best thing to do is walk back from the continued commercialization of college sports. Paying players only furthers what is an unsustainable approach to managing college sports. Is it always about race, or can it sometimes just be about concerns for the future of college sports?