Coaching drama aside (I admit to being a little fatigued by this issue), I wanted to further explore this notion of paying players and what exactly makes it wrong. There’s no excuse for our poor play against the MSUs, Indianas, and Wisconsins of the world (and I am in favor of coaching season as a result), but I am also a firm believer that we will never catch OSU again unless the playing field is level in recruiting. For context, I’m the guy that wrote this after our latest debacle against OSU last year:
https://mgoblog.com/diaries/data-dr...eptable-crowd-what-trade-offs-are-you-willing
In that post, there is direct data on how schools like Ole Miss, Georgia, and OSU shot up the recruiting rankings when coaches known for paying recruits took over.
I’ve see this topic discussed on and off within the Michigan internet realm. Oftentimes the argument against paying players boils down to what seems like a Kantian view of morality – following rules is always the right thing to do, and therefore having integrity means following the rules even when it disadvantages us. The most common quote I see for those against paying players is something like “I would rather lose with integrity than win at all costs without it.”
I want to genuinely dive into that a bit more, because I’ll be honest – I don’t understand that view. For context, I am a proud graduate of the university and love it as much as I love anything in this world. Integrity is really important to me, and I do believe that the University of Michigan embodies it much more so many other institutions I have seen (for example, much more so than the Wharton School which I am also got a degree from and can use as a comparison point). I agree that I don’t want UM’s integrity to be compromised, but I think the key questions are 1) what is actually moral, and 2) who defines it within the context of paying players or not?
From my view, I would argue that it is actually immoral to not pay players. We live in America, which prides itself on being a capitalist society in which you are free to monetize your talents and abilities. Football players – even those recruited to Michigan – have a miniscule chance to go to the NFL, and even if they do the average career is just a few short years. Sure, you might get paid a few million during the average career, but that’s assuming you make it there in the first place. That’s not nearly enough money to coast on for the rest of your life, especially after taxes and taking into account the setback in a non-football career that you would have just from a time / skill development perspective. The point I’m making is that the longevity-adjusted career football earnings for the average Michigan football player is incredibly low – this isn’t an opinion, just a fact.
College football players likely work at the very least 40 hours a week on college football, in addition to being full-time students. Their only compensation for that at the moment is a full scholarship, which is likely something like $75K all-in (just my estimate) per year. That sounds good on the surface, but we should remember just how much revenue / profits that they are bringing in to the school. In addition, they boost the school’s reputation, applications, outside interest, donations, and even academic standing (just look up how much Alabama has improved over Saban’s tenure in these factors). What we are paying them today in scholarship value is like paying Mike Tyson a fixed $500K for a fight even though he is drawing in $100M in revenue. I would argue that would not be morally fair. Furthermore, other students attending the university specializing in theater or music or even business can freely monetize their own abilities while they are in school. Why is it different for college football players? Or maybe more directly, why does the university seem to make a different distinction for them?
I guess that it might be because the NCAA has rules that you can’t pay to recruit players, or pay them once they are in school. Again, it’s back to this Kantian view of rules having to be followed in order to have integrity. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. To bring up an extreme example, think of the ancient Aztec society in which the rules were to conduct regular human sacrifices, oftentimes of young children. Those were the rules set by the society. A Kantian view might hold that those adhering to the rules have integrity, but I think most of us would rationally agree that murdering young children who didn’t want to be murdered is not a morally just action. I know this example is obviously extreme, but I use it to simply establish what I believe is relatively obvious – just because something is a rule does not automatically make it morally just, nor does it make those following these rules automatically have “integrity.”
Note that I am NOT talking about lowering academic standards / requirements for students – they should be expected to go to school and get a degree, unlike the UNCs of the world. I am also NOT talking about loosening any legal standards or ethical standards for behavior. These things all have very real negative consequences for the student-athlete, for the university, and for society as whole. But in all of the discussions I’ve seen on paying players, I’ve never seen a single person actually make a compelling case on what the actual, real-life, negative impact for paying a player is (beyond the Kantian argument that it’s against the rules). What is so bad about this in the real world? What are the negative consequences of paying players? I honestly don’t understand – from my view, I don’t really see any. What I see is a capitalist society functioning as it should – allowing people to monetize a skill that they have developed instead of huge organizations to profit off those skills without sharing the financial rewards. I also don’t understand what the harm is when many of these kids do not come from rich families in the top one percent and also have a very limited window (physically) to monetize their skills. Ultimately, I don’t see what Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc. are doing in terms of paying recruits as morally wrong.
This brings me to the second point, which is who actually defines paying players as wrong? It’s certainly not the government or any legal ruling (in fact, I suspect that the government would actually be happy with this since the IRS would benefit). Rather, it’s the NCAA. This is where I think it’s just a complete and other joke. The NCAA is as hypocritical an organization as exists in the Western world today. They know exactly what Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc. are doing (a five second internet search brings up all the proof that is needed) but do nothing to enforce their own rules. Meanwhile, they let these organizations impose meaningless self-penalties to save face while bringing the hammer down more forcibly on less prominent schools to be seen as tough on enforcement. The NCAA knows who butters its bread and doesn’t want to rock the boat – they are completely fine if the top schools pay their recruits so long as ratings are high and the money is flowing. My question here is, why is abiding by the rules set by such a horrendously hypocritical and self-serving organization moral? Why is it right to keep our hands tied while others flaunt these rules and laugh in our faces? I’ve realized that whether it’s life in general, business, legal, whatever – a rule only has substance if it is enforceable. If the NCAA chooses not to enforce it on purpose, even knowing that it takes place, why is the rule legitimate? It is not, in my view. (Note that I am not advocating that people do the wrong thing when certain rules are unenforceable – for example, just a because the EPA doesn’t have enough manpower to prevent a company from polluting too much doesn’t mean that the company should pollute more than its allocated amount… that’s not what I am saying. Polluting is obviously bad and has negative consequences. In my view, paying players is not somehow inherently or morally wrong, nor does it have negative consequences.)
Ultimately, I don’t view paying players as somehow compromising integrity… if anything, I believe that it’s the morally correct thing to do. So, I’ve made my arguments. I would be curious to get the board’s view. Specifically, do you subscribe to a Kantian view that not breaking the rules is inherently moral (I can respect that, even if I disagree)? If so, why? What are the real-life negative consequences of paying players? Finally, why should Michigan compete with one hand tied behind its back?
As always, I hope for a great discussion. If you disagree with the premise (that Michigan doesn’t pay today on a systematic basis at least, and Alabama / Clemson / OSU / Georgia / LSU do – all of which is easily verifiable), then there’s nothing to talk about – we can’t have a conversation if facts are not agreed upon. I would appreciate if you just skip this thread and go to the next one. Thanks for reading, I appreciate it – and Go Blue!
https://mgoblog.com/diaries/data-dr...eptable-crowd-what-trade-offs-are-you-willing
In that post, there is direct data on how schools like Ole Miss, Georgia, and OSU shot up the recruiting rankings when coaches known for paying recruits took over.
I’ve see this topic discussed on and off within the Michigan internet realm. Oftentimes the argument against paying players boils down to what seems like a Kantian view of morality – following rules is always the right thing to do, and therefore having integrity means following the rules even when it disadvantages us. The most common quote I see for those against paying players is something like “I would rather lose with integrity than win at all costs without it.”
I want to genuinely dive into that a bit more, because I’ll be honest – I don’t understand that view. For context, I am a proud graduate of the university and love it as much as I love anything in this world. Integrity is really important to me, and I do believe that the University of Michigan embodies it much more so many other institutions I have seen (for example, much more so than the Wharton School which I am also got a degree from and can use as a comparison point). I agree that I don’t want UM’s integrity to be compromised, but I think the key questions are 1) what is actually moral, and 2) who defines it within the context of paying players or not?
From my view, I would argue that it is actually immoral to not pay players. We live in America, which prides itself on being a capitalist society in which you are free to monetize your talents and abilities. Football players – even those recruited to Michigan – have a miniscule chance to go to the NFL, and even if they do the average career is just a few short years. Sure, you might get paid a few million during the average career, but that’s assuming you make it there in the first place. That’s not nearly enough money to coast on for the rest of your life, especially after taxes and taking into account the setback in a non-football career that you would have just from a time / skill development perspective. The point I’m making is that the longevity-adjusted career football earnings for the average Michigan football player is incredibly low – this isn’t an opinion, just a fact.
College football players likely work at the very least 40 hours a week on college football, in addition to being full-time students. Their only compensation for that at the moment is a full scholarship, which is likely something like $75K all-in (just my estimate) per year. That sounds good on the surface, but we should remember just how much revenue / profits that they are bringing in to the school. In addition, they boost the school’s reputation, applications, outside interest, donations, and even academic standing (just look up how much Alabama has improved over Saban’s tenure in these factors). What we are paying them today in scholarship value is like paying Mike Tyson a fixed $500K for a fight even though he is drawing in $100M in revenue. I would argue that would not be morally fair. Furthermore, other students attending the university specializing in theater or music or even business can freely monetize their own abilities while they are in school. Why is it different for college football players? Or maybe more directly, why does the university seem to make a different distinction for them?
I guess that it might be because the NCAA has rules that you can’t pay to recruit players, or pay them once they are in school. Again, it’s back to this Kantian view of rules having to be followed in order to have integrity. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. To bring up an extreme example, think of the ancient Aztec society in which the rules were to conduct regular human sacrifices, oftentimes of young children. Those were the rules set by the society. A Kantian view might hold that those adhering to the rules have integrity, but I think most of us would rationally agree that murdering young children who didn’t want to be murdered is not a morally just action. I know this example is obviously extreme, but I use it to simply establish what I believe is relatively obvious – just because something is a rule does not automatically make it morally just, nor does it make those following these rules automatically have “integrity.”
Note that I am NOT talking about lowering academic standards / requirements for students – they should be expected to go to school and get a degree, unlike the UNCs of the world. I am also NOT talking about loosening any legal standards or ethical standards for behavior. These things all have very real negative consequences for the student-athlete, for the university, and for society as whole. But in all of the discussions I’ve seen on paying players, I’ve never seen a single person actually make a compelling case on what the actual, real-life, negative impact for paying a player is (beyond the Kantian argument that it’s against the rules). What is so bad about this in the real world? What are the negative consequences of paying players? I honestly don’t understand – from my view, I don’t really see any. What I see is a capitalist society functioning as it should – allowing people to monetize a skill that they have developed instead of huge organizations to profit off those skills without sharing the financial rewards. I also don’t understand what the harm is when many of these kids do not come from rich families in the top one percent and also have a very limited window (physically) to monetize their skills. Ultimately, I don’t see what Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc. are doing in terms of paying recruits as morally wrong.
This brings me to the second point, which is who actually defines paying players as wrong? It’s certainly not the government or any legal ruling (in fact, I suspect that the government would actually be happy with this since the IRS would benefit). Rather, it’s the NCAA. This is where I think it’s just a complete and other joke. The NCAA is as hypocritical an organization as exists in the Western world today. They know exactly what Alabama, Clemson, OSU, etc. are doing (a five second internet search brings up all the proof that is needed) but do nothing to enforce their own rules. Meanwhile, they let these organizations impose meaningless self-penalties to save face while bringing the hammer down more forcibly on less prominent schools to be seen as tough on enforcement. The NCAA knows who butters its bread and doesn’t want to rock the boat – they are completely fine if the top schools pay their recruits so long as ratings are high and the money is flowing. My question here is, why is abiding by the rules set by such a horrendously hypocritical and self-serving organization moral? Why is it right to keep our hands tied while others flaunt these rules and laugh in our faces? I’ve realized that whether it’s life in general, business, legal, whatever – a rule only has substance if it is enforceable. If the NCAA chooses not to enforce it on purpose, even knowing that it takes place, why is the rule legitimate? It is not, in my view. (Note that I am not advocating that people do the wrong thing when certain rules are unenforceable – for example, just a because the EPA doesn’t have enough manpower to prevent a company from polluting too much doesn’t mean that the company should pollute more than its allocated amount… that’s not what I am saying. Polluting is obviously bad and has negative consequences. In my view, paying players is not somehow inherently or morally wrong, nor does it have negative consequences.)
Ultimately, I don’t view paying players as somehow compromising integrity… if anything, I believe that it’s the morally correct thing to do. So, I’ve made my arguments. I would be curious to get the board’s view. Specifically, do you subscribe to a Kantian view that not breaking the rules is inherently moral (I can respect that, even if I disagree)? If so, why? What are the real-life negative consequences of paying players? Finally, why should Michigan compete with one hand tied behind its back?
As always, I hope for a great discussion. If you disagree with the premise (that Michigan doesn’t pay today on a systematic basis at least, and Alabama / Clemson / OSU / Georgia / LSU do – all of which is easily verifiable), then there’s nothing to talk about – we can’t have a conversation if facts are not agreed upon. I would appreciate if you just skip this thread and go to the next one. Thanks for reading, I appreciate it – and Go Blue!
