Home
News Post


Something about this just doesn't feel right.

Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith has been awarded an $18,000 bonus because a Buckeyes wrestler won an individual national championship.

According to TheRepublic.com:
Quote:
Smith signed a new contract this year that pays him a bonus for "exceptional athletic achievements," including Final Four and Bowl Championship Series appearances or titles won by individuals in any of 20 sports.

Logan Steiber -- the 141-pound champion -- of course gets to keep his scholarship and will carry the memory of his victory the rest of his life. Those things are irreplaceable and don't hold monetary value. But that's probably a good thing, because extra benefits or rewards for Steiber's accomplishment could put him at risk for receiving impermissible benefits. Permission to profit off athletes like Steiber, however, is something Smith decided to grant himself in his contract.

If Steiber was to graduate and rocket to a career with NASA, would his science professor get a boost in pay for overseeing his greatness? I think we all know the answer to that. Gene Smith, however, gets to fatten his wallet with the equivalent of an extra week's pay while the rest of us debate the legitimacy of college athletics compensation.

Sound Off: Should school administrators be allowed to receive extra benefits for individual and/or team accomplishments?

Sports Headlines for March 26, 2014

Member Comments
# 1 LowerWolf @ 03/26/14 03:01 PM
I subscribe to the notion that college athletics should be amateur and that a scholarship should suffice for the athletes.

But it gets harder and harder to maintain that belief when administrators "earn" bonuses based off of those athletes and nearly every NCAA event is overrun with corporate sponsors and advertisements.

In no way shape or form should Gene Smith - or any other AD, he's far from the only one I'm sure - be allowed to receive extra compensation for an athlete's accomplishment, especially when that athlete isn't allowed to cash in. The NCAA is overdue for a drastic overhaul.
 
# 2 braves_94 @ 03/26/14 03:43 PM
What's wrong with administrators doing their jobs? Why else would you hire them, if not to heighten and better your athletic department? Maybe allowing for bonuses across all sports keeps them from just focusing on football.

And as far as paying student athletes, no one said you had to play college ball in the first place. There are numerous places to go if you want to be a professional athlete. No one is forcing them to go to college. Kids from high school can go to the development league and draw a paycheck. The NFL has their share of players who never played college ball. You can be drafted straight from high school in baseball. Hockey too. Slippery slope, should we start paying high school students? Same principle, just less money coming in. These kids want the biggest stage at all times. They subject themselves to this environment. And they know full well what they're getting into. If you don't like it, there's your ball. No one is guaranteed nothing in this lifetime. And sometimes people are never fully compensated. Consider it a life lesson.
 
# 3 braves_94 @ 03/26/14 03:57 PM
So you might ask, what about the mega-atletes that make programs? How come they don't get paid? Well, they do. And it comes in form of draft positions. That's when they get paid. College offers them the exposure to heighten their draft stock. Why do you think 90% of all professional athletes play college ball in the first place? Baseball, it's to better their draft stock, or become a better player. Which sounds strikingly similar to everyday business professionals. I didn't get paid while going for a finance degree. Going to the D-League in basketball probably DQ's you from being a top 3 pick. But there have been international players taken #1. Long story short, there is no one forcing these kids to play college sports. Saying that their university are soley benefitting from their play is short-sided. The issue is, there's money. And someone always wants their cut.
 
# 4 soonermagic88 @ 03/26/14 04:03 PM
Uhh... braves_94 which NFL players never played college football? In past 30 years i can think of one notable one and he still went to college and played D1 basketball. Antonio Gates. If you wantto have a shot in the NFL, then you have to go through college. Obviously there is always an exception, but in this case the exception accounts for .1% of NFL players at best.
 
# 5 soonermagic88 @ 03/26/14 04:10 PM
In the case of college football, yes the university is benefiting off the players. Have you seen the revenue numbers for college football lately?? In Texas A&M's first SEC season, the football team alone made $120 MILLION. Who was the main attraction that season??? Johnny Manziel. Had they not had him, not beat Bama and not beat OU in the Cotton Bowl, are they making that kind of money? Ok, so maybe the revenue wouldnt drop off drastically but it would drop off. I would venture to say under 100 Million. In other words, theoretically, Manziel alone brought in nearly 20 Million to the school.
 
# 6 snaz16 @ 03/26/14 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerWolf
I subscribe to the notion that college athletics should be amateur and that a scholarship should suffice for the athletes.

But it gets harder and harder to maintain that belief when administrators "earn" bonuses based off of those athletes and nearly every NCAA event is overrun with corporate sponsors and advertisements.

In no way shape or form should Gene Smith - or any other AD, he's far from the only one I'm sure - be allowed to receive extra compensation for an athlete's accomplishment, especially when that athlete isn't allowed to cash in. The NCAA is overdue for a drastic overhaul.
Agree with everything said LowerWolf. And you hit the nail on the head as I'm sure Smith isn't the only AD getting paid for athlete's achievements. Would have liked the writer from the Columbus,Indiana Dispatch to do a little investigative journalism and see if AD's from Notre Dame,Purdue,and IU get something similar. My guess is yes.
 
# 7 soonermagic88 @ 03/26/14 04:17 PM
Another example for you, braves_94. Florida Gulf Coast, the tournament darlings of last year. After their spectacular run in March Madness they started recieving attention from prospective students like they had never recieved. Admissions went up by nearly 25%! More admissions, more money for the school. Did the student athletes recieve anything for bringing in this attention? Nope. Let's not stop there, the student athletes also got their coach a new gig and a giant contract! He bailed ship for USC. His performance rewarded him with a nice big new contract while the student athletes who played the games got....?? Anybody? NOTHING.
 
# 8 braves_94 @ 03/26/14 04:39 PM
They got a free education! That's what they got. Doesn't seem like nothing to me, does it? Let's not forget that above all, a university is a learning center. Universities will go on if sports dropped off the face of the earth. Not the other way around. Paying athletes causes a profound issue at the heart of academia. Nobody paid me for the papers I co-wrote for my college. And you know why? Because they provided all the tools necessary for it. You argue that the players bring attention to the school. If those kids were playing at a random playground filled with 64 individual teams, they would have gained zero noteriety. The school put the field in place. They put the court in place. And they put the diamond in place. They signed and negotiated the TV deals, alot of the time, before a player steps in the university. That itself has intrinsic value. So what does the player get? Noteriety by putting on the school uniform. A full ride, saving them thousands in the future on payback and interest. And if they're good enough, they get to play professionally. Sounds like a great deal to me. If they want to eat, get a $2,500 loan for every year on campus. That's more than enough. And still lower than the average college loan amount by a wide margin. And lastly, no one offered Texas A&M anything just for signing Johnny Football. Texas and other schools offered him as a DB. The initials turned out to be right, but I'm getting side-tracked. A&M gave him an oppurtunity. They played him, they discovered his talents. They put him in a position to profit by allowing him the right to lead their offense and play the most valuable position in the sport. He's doing just well for himself.
 
# 9 braves_94 @ 03/26/14 04:53 PM
And you really want to know why universities will never pay their athletes? Walk-ons. Heard of them? These kids get nothing and play for their pure love of the game. Or hopes of getting simply a scholarship. Ohio St, Michigan, Texas, Stanford all the big colleges don't need athletics to boost admission. If there is someone willing to play for free, why pay at all? Scholarships are there for kids who devote their extra time to activities and simply don't have the time for second jobs. And since the bigger schools will never pay, and would probably boycott playing outliers, it will never happen. Pure economics say there is no need to pay, simply because the demand isn't there. Someone, somewhere, will always be more than happier to do it at the minimum amount, their time. College isn't a place to make money. It's there to prepare you for life after. Intrinsic value of it all far outstrips the monetary value.
 
# 10 braves_94 @ 03/26/14 07:00 PM
I'm probably coming across terrible. Look, I want to see the athletes fairly compensated. But that's not how things work. If so McDonald's would be paying more than minimum wages to half it's workforce. The NCAA is a governing body. Unlike the NFL which actually owns the league. The payments would have to come from the schools themselves. Which would turn all athletes into employees of the school. So to start off, the school will be paying out money. Do you think this won't pass back to the fans any? Since they're now employees they will open themselves up to a mutiny of possible lawsuits. Each school has about a thousand athletes competing. As the prices go up, the student section will probably disappear. Pageantry, out the window. The NFL makes millions, and everyone gets their take on a team owner basis. The NCAA isn't organized like that. And when you have a few schools athletic departments actually making money, it will cause a massive financial strain on college sports. Simply put, the way things are structured now, colleges simply cannot pay their athletes. Yeah it's a million dollar industry, but colleges aren't the only ones solely benefitting. And only a select few really only play the sports to become a professional. 99% of everyone else is just happy with the scholarship. But if a debate about getting paid more popped up in your field, you'd join the discussion as well.
 
# 11 inkcil @ 03/26/14 07:40 PM
Someone is over-valuing the economic worth of a "free" college education in the 21st century global marketplace of labor supply and demand. Good luck with that free education when you go up against an Ivory school grad who is actually an academic or the guy on the other side of the globe who only demands .50 cents/hour.
 
# 12 soonermagic88 @ 03/27/14 08:18 AM
If they want to eat, get a loan? Do you know how dumb you sound? How about the school at least give the kids enough money to eat on? They are expecting these kids to perform like Formula 1 cars and are giving them enough money to get a quarter of a tank of regular unleaded.
Not only that, but some of these schools arent getting these kids an actual education, they are putting them in "Football Degrees" that anyone with half a brain could pass, USING them for football then "graduating" them to inflate the schools numbers. Meanwhile that young man goes out into the work force with nothing to show for it, and cant find a job. Sure, some of the fault is on the kid, but not all of it. Not by a long shot. Some people don't learn as easily as others and no one at that University cares if the kid learns or not, rendering his "free education" worthless.
College athletics are a JOB. The hours the players put in between practice, film, games etc consume their lives. Let's take the college wrestler at tOSU for example. He put in years and years and thousands of hours perfecting his craft. Yet when he reached the Pinnacle of his craft, he got..what? A medal and a pat on the back? While his AD rewarded himself with another 18 GRAND?! Who is benifiting from whom here?

Sure, colleges could drop sports and still go on. But why would some place like Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma etc do that? They are raking in over 100 million a year off of one sport and a free labor force. I'm not saying they need to be paying these kids 100k a year, not even 50k a year, hell not even 25k a year. Im saying give them something, give them enough that they aren't having to steal just to feed themselves in the off season. Give them some sort of insurance in case they tear their ACL and ruin their career, so that they have something to fall back on once the school casts them aside as defective. Allow them to make money off of THEIR own image. Why South Carolina sell a number 7 Clowney jersey and make 60-70 bucks a pop with NONE of it going to the name on the back of the jersey?
 
# 13 braves_94 @ 03/27/14 01:47 PM
How is getting a student loan to eat dumb? I know many non-athletes who did just that to make ends meet while in college. I'm simply saying the outlet is there for them to have decent campus lives through various means. And another thing, SCHOOLS DO PAY FOR ATHLETES TO EAT! They get $4 a meal. Might not sound appeasing to you, but one student loan of $5,000 would cover all their meals for four yeas on campus in addition to the $4 dollars. Anyone cant eat off of $10 a meal.

I know tons of athletes who graduated with advanced degrees. Those who graduate with football degrees are of no concern to me. That's there decision. They wouldn't be playing the game if they thought it couldn't lead to anything meaningful, or was a benefit to them. No one is forcing them to take a scholarship. No one is forcing them to suit up and play every Saturday. They made the decision full-knowing of the ramificaitons.

Student loans sounds dumb, won't get over that anytime soon, lol.
 
# 14 braves_94 @ 03/27/14 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkcil
Someone is over-valuing the economic worth of a "free" college education in the 21st century global marketplace of labor supply and demand. Good luck with that free education when you go up against an Ivory school grad who is actually an academic or the guy on the other side of the globe who only demands .50 cents/hour.
If the work can be done by third-world factory worker, I highly doubt it would be desired by a college graduate here, let alone an Ivy Leaguer, lol. What a load of bull. To the average worker in America- Be on the lookout for them Ivy League graduates and third-world factory workers, they exist only to steal your job! 3% of all college graduates are unemployed. Judging by who post on here, I doubt 97% of us are Ivy League graduates...
 
# 15 inkcil @ 03/27/14 02:18 PM
The point is that college-level job opportunities commensurate with the cost of living required to maintain a middle class lifestyle are shrinking. The most academic graduates (ie Ivy leaguers) are now looking for jobs that they would have scoffed at 20 years ago. The jock graduate can't compete with them. Likewise the lower paying entry level hourly jobs that paid college grads $20/hour are going overseas in a globalized job market.

In addition, the majority of college grads with employment are from the boomer generation. Also, many gen x and millenials with college degrees are working jobs that don't require degrees because of the shrinkage in middle class jobs. And there are many who are underemployed - working less than full time. So again, the world has changed, the value of a college education has dropped, earnings have not kept up with inflation, and if you are not connected or very very smart at what you do the day you graduate, good luck finding a job that will do anything other than get you paycheck to paycheck living.

To further belabor the point, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently released a study (volume 20, #1 in current issues: economics and finance) noting that the underemployment rate for recent college grads (ages 22-27) was 44% as of 2012. This is up from 34% in 2001.
 
# 16 inkcil @ 03/27/14 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by braves_94
No one is forcing them to take a scholarship. No one is forcing them to suit up and play every Saturday. They made the decision full-knowing of the ramificaitons.
And no one is forcing the schools to rule that the athletes can't be paid or make money off their own likeness. No one is forcing the schools to graduate "students" that never had a chance to learn anything because they spend 40 hours a week on football trying to keep their "scholarship." And no one is forcing schools raking in hundreds of millions of dollars to limit these men to $4 per meal.

The "good ol' days" are coming to an end.

Slowly but surely...
 

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.