[jalgos_eminator]

I think sports is a big blind spot for most HN users, so I would like to offer an informal Q&A with me here in this thread. I am a former top-level division 1 football player that got a technical degree and now work in the IT/software space.

I like to do these every once in a while because there is so much incorrect information and bad assumptions about high level college athletes that I feel the need to combat this when the opportunity presents itself. I haven't read the posted SC opinion yet because I'm at work and currently eating a burrito. Don't be afraid to ask probing questions, the worst that will happen is I will choose not to answer.

[Zanta]

An argument presented in this case is that increased pay to college athletes will incentivize them to spend more time on their athletics and less on their academics. How convincing do you find that argument, applied to athletes in a) Top Tier D1 Football programs, b) D1 programs but for less hyper-commercialized sports (say track, or volleyball), and c) D2 or D3 athletes with little-to-no aspirations of a future in professional athletics

[jalgos_eminator]

I think that argument is dubious and the money would only affect a very small subset of athletes. It would even be a small subset of football/basketball players. You would want to set up professional feeder leagues and give kids the option of going pro or going to school. Honestly a proper developmental league would go a long way to fix/alleviate many of the problems with college athletics.

This is how baseball works, and all the baseball players I met actively wanted to be in college. Some of them even turned down $100k-$500k draft signing bonuses to play college ball.

[tw04]

You have to maintain a certain GPA regardless to continue competing. Unless they're cheating in school, the incentive to study will be the same either way. If they are cheating in school, then they were never serious about the education in the first place.

Honestly the focus (or lack thereof) on education starts at home.

source: also played college sports.

[elpakal]

former D2 athlete here, never had aspirations to go pro. I don't think it's possible to spend "more time on their athletics" even at D2 level (can't speak for D3, though from my friends playing D1 it seems to be more time consuming).

my experience was waking up before the crack of dawn to pre-train, going to school in the morning, and then spending the rest of any free time I had after training (be it weights, cardio, practice etc). and then you watch film. all for the love (scholarships were nice) - so anyone that suggests there is more time to spend on athletics at these levels, and that paying athletes will somehow encourage them to do so vs academia, deserves a flan in the face.

[moate]

How, and how much, do you personally feel student athletes should be compensated?

Should anyone actually care that West Nowhere State can't afford to compete against Alabama in football or KSU in basketball, since they never could have in the first place?

How much under the table money will these just be getting above board/visible to laymen (and isn't this a good thing when it comes to large state schools being accountable to taxpayers?)

[jalgos_eminator]

I think the point of all this is that my opinion of how much college athletes should be compensated isn't relevant. My opinion on how much a software developer should be paid isn't relevant either, because the market sets the rate of compensation for software developers.

The problem right now with college athletics (at least football and basketball) is that the schools found a cash cow and the pro leagues found a free farm league that produces top talent. Its a symbiotic relationship and neither one wants to rock the boat. There's a reason the NFL players have their own union after all.

Regarding your second question, West Nowhere State is an ant in an elephants world. There are plenty of D3 programs (that give no aid or preferred admission) that have football programs that lose hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. They'll keep doing it even if Alabama is able to pay their players above the table.

As far as under the table money, I'm not sure. I never saw nor heard about those things, and with the way athletes like to boast it would surprise me if they were all able to keep their mouths shut. I think its less money going to less athletes than people would like to think.

[moate]

My first point was less of a "200K/year" and more of a "whatever the market dictates the value of their skills would be" vs "a tiered set scale". Basically, do you think that Bama should be able to drop 2 million a year in player salaries while West Nowhere can only offer partial coverage scholarships.

And the under the table money is real, but less secret bags of cash left in their dorm and more "the AD bought a new car but realized he doesn't like the interior, do you want it?" IDK where you went to college, but several high profile programs lost championships and got sanctions for creative ways they "recruited" players. The ruling opens up more levers for schools to use to funnel goods and services towards players, even if they can't give them actually currency.

[jalgos_eminator]

Yes, I think that players should be offered what they are worth. At this point the cat is out of the bag. College head coaches are getting paid millions per year (look it up, its all public), the assistants are getting paid 200k-800k. The athletic directors get paid $400k-$800k. Strength and conditioning coaches are getting $150k. Every year coaches leverage the public nature of their salaries to get better offers. Apparently the free market works great for everyone except the athletes. Strange how that works.

For some reason, the schools don't complain about how much money they are paying the coaches. They don't complain about how much money they are spending on facilities. They don't complain about how much money they spend on marketing. But for some reason, when the public starts talking about paying players, they start complaining and making excuses. If you want them to play for the love of the game, then get rid of scholarships. If you want them to be professionals, then pay them.

And yes, that will create inequity among players. That's fine. I wasn't worth the same to my team as our star quarterback (who now is a backup in the NFL). Its the way the world works, especially the world of sports.

edit: grammar

[dan_quixote]

How did you manage the technical degree and full-time athlete duties? Did they occur at the same time?

[jalgos_eminator]

Yes, I got my degree in 5 years and was on the team for all 5 of those years. It was tough. Lots of scheduling conflicts, because practice/meeting/lifting times are set in stone and you have to schedule your academics around them. I didn't find the workload too bad, but I basically didn't have time to do anything else other than football and school. In-season you scale back classes to the minimum number of credit-hours because football takes about 50 hours per week (minimum, 60 hours when you are travelling that week). I took 5 years though, so was able to spread the credit-hours out over an extra year so I wasn't taking too many classes each term.

[colinmhayes]

There was a starter on the football team in my graduating class at umich cs. The only explanation of how he found the time I can think of is he had tutors do most of the work for him.

[jalgos_eminator]

I think its unfair to assume that about him. There were a decent number of athletes in engineering degrees when I was in school and they absolutely worked their asses off, myself included.

Although there were special athletic academic tutors, there weren't any available that could tutor for engineering subjects so I doubt any athletes were getting assignments done for them. Regular tutors wouldn't have played along with that game. Also, the professors (at least most of mine) were pretty skeptical of athletics, so I was on a short leash for what I could get away with (missing classes, moving exam dates, asking for extra time on projects, etc). If they sniffed that I was cheating, they would have brought the hammer down without thinking twice. That's just my experience at my school though.

[oh_sigh]

Just a second hand anecdote, but a professor of mine at my small liberal arts college with a D3 football team - mentioned over a few glasses of wine that he had moved on from teaching at Virginia Tech because he was pressured by the administration to give passing grades to Michael Vick, who never attended a single class or completed any coursework of his.

[jalgos_eminator]

Yeah, I would only be mildly surprised if this happened a time or two while I was in school. There are some guys that just don't want to go to school, but college football is their only pathway to make it to the NFL. The academic counselors have their hands full just trying to keep all their athletes eligible, let alone enabling them to thrive in an academic environment.