Isaiah Neyor

[307bball]

I don't know, man. Just because the courts/governing bodies say something isn't a crime or against the rules, it doesn't mean it's the right or ethical thing to do.

If these players were taking the cash and investing it in ways that could benefit them long-term, I would be more forgiving. But most of these guys are not - they are buying flashy cars and other shit that depreciates so quickly it's worth almost nothing in 10 years. Just my guess, but I bet a lot of them are not better of financially five years after college than they would have been if we were still doing things the old way.

In general, college athletes do better than non-athletes from a financial perspective. This is from studies that lump DIII athletes, golfers, swimmers ect, along with the revenue sport athletes. The effects aren't huge but they do exist.

To me, it's obvious that NCAA athlete competing in track while getting an engineering degree is a different economic bargain than an FBS football player spending 40+ hours a week on football and earning an easier but less lucrative degree.

From my limited searches, the data on outcomes specifically for revenue sport athletes doesn't really exist.

At some point somebody will do the research but it would surprise me greatly if getting a giant check made things worse for those guys in the long run. The story of the lottery winner or athlete squandering the quick money is always a good headline but it's actually much more complicated.

 

[TheRealUW]

In general, college athletes do better than non-athletes from a financial perspective. This is from studies that lump DIII athletes, golfers, swimmers ect, along with the revenue sport athletes. The effects aren't huge but they do exist.

To me, it's obvious that NCAA athlete competing in track while getting an engineering degree is a different economic bargain than an FBS football player spending 40+ hours a week on football and earning an easier but less lucrative degree.

From my limited searches, the data on outcomes specifically for revenue sport athletes doesn't really exist.

At some point somebody will do the research but it would surprise me greatly if getting a giant check made things worse for those guys in the long run. The story of the lottery winner or athlete squandering the quick money is always a good headline but it's actually much more complicated.

Disagree. Professional athletes, particularly in the NFL and NBA, going broke within a few years of retirement is not just a headline. It is very common.

While it’s a bit outdated, Sports illustrated published that well known article in 2009 reporting 78% of NFL players faced severe financial hardship within two years of retiring from the NFL. In the NBA, 60% of retired players faced the same fate within five years of retirement. It may have improved some over the past couple decades, but I would bet it is still a major issue.

 

[cowpoke pride]

Disagree. Professional athletes, particularly in the NFL and NBA, going broke within a few years of retirement is not just a headline. It is very common.

While it’s a bit outdated, Sports illustrated published that well known article in 2009 reporting 78% of NFL players faced severe financial hardship within two years of retiring from the NFL. In the NBA, 60% of retired players faced the same fate within five years of retirement. It may have improved some over the past couple decades, but I would bet it is still a major issue.

30 for 30 "Broke" is a stunning watch.

 

[TheRealUW]

30 for 30 "Broke" is a stunning watch.

I have not seen that. I'll have to check it out.

I'm not against the idea of college athletes being paid. I'm not even against the idea of college athletes being able to transfer repeatedly. What I am pushing back against is the idea that these guys chasing the dollar is synonymous with "bettering themselves".

Can making more money lead to a better life? Yes, it sure can. It can change the life of not only the person making the money, but also the life of their dependents and even future generations. There is no argument about that. But does making more money guarantee that? No. In fact, the limited data out there seems to suggest it does not do that for the vast majority of professional athletes even though they make more money in a few years than most people make in their lifetime.

I'm just using the eye test here, but I don't think many of these guys are taking the money and investing in historically appreciable assets with an eye on long-term gain and the financial health of their future families. It appears to me that a lot of them buy depreciable assets with significant long-term recurring costs that they won't be able to afford as soon as the cash flow dries up. That isn't "betting themselves". It's just being selfish and I'm not going to congratulate them on their way out of UW in search of the next shiny thing and pretty girl.

These are young men, not "kids", and we should treat them as such. Our expectations for men in their 20's have become so low that we let them flounder around with zero expectations or obligations and wonder why they suck as husbands and fathers later in life.

OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Sorry.

 

[doreno5]

I have not seen that. I'll have to check it out.

I'm not against the idea of college athletes being paid. I'm not even against the idea of college athletes being able to transfer repeatedly. What I am pushing back against is the idea that these guys chasing the dollar is synonymous with "bettering themselves".

Can making more money lead to a better life? Yes, it sure can. It can change the life of not only the person making the money, but also the life of their dependents and even future generations. There is no argument about that. But does making more money guarantee that? No. In fact, the limited data out there seems to suggest it does not do that for the vast majority of professional athletes even though they make more money in a few years than most people make in their lifetime.

I'm just using the eye test here, but I don't think many of these guys are taking the money and investing in historically appreciable assets with an eye on long-term gain and the financial health of their future families. It appears to me that a lot of them buy depreciable assets with significant long-term recurring costs that they won't be able to afford as soon as the cash flow dries up. That isn't "betting themselves". It's just being selfish and I'm not going to congratulate them on their way out of UW in search of the next shiny thing and pretty girl.

These are young men, not "kids", and we should treat them as such. Our expectations for men in their 20's have become so low that we let them flounder around with zero expectations or obligations and wonder why they suck as husbands and fathers later in life.

OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Sorry.

One factor which is very real regarding football players is that if they do not come from a P4 team, their chances of getting drafted in the earlier rounds of the NFL draft are really low. I suspect that some of the allure of transferring for players at schools like Wyoming is the potential to play at a school where their chances of getting drafted are better. Money is undoubtedly the biggest factor but there are others to consider as well. Heck Williams left because of a girl.

 

[307bball]

Disagree. Professional athletes, particularly in the NFL and NBA, going broke within a few years of retirement is not just a headline. It is very common.

While it’s a bit outdated, Sports illustrated published that well known article in 2009 reporting 78% of NFL players faced severe financial hardship within two years of retiring from the NFL. In the NBA, 60% of retired players faced the same fate within five years of retirement. It may have improved some over the past couple decades, but I would bet it is still a major issue.

What are you disagreeing with? The only "opinion" I gave is that if a study were ever done on college athletes from revenue sports, it would not show a differential negative outcome. As far as I know, that data does not exist.

The other information I presented is not opinion...it's a paraphrasing of a some of the studies that have been done. From what I could find, most studys find average earnings of college athletes to be higher than non-athletes ... but, as I said before, it's complicated by a lot of other stuff.

One from the NBER in 2021 stated "We show that, on average, student-athletes either out-perform or perform the same as observationally identical nonathletes in terms of graduation and post-collegiate salaries. Participation in athletics promotes social mobility."

An earlier study in the Journal of Human Resources (2005) found sort of conflicting information... "it shows that on average former college athletes earn a wage premium..." "... Further, the premium is not uniform across occupations. Athletes earn more in the fields of business, military, and manual labor, but surprisingly, athletes are more likely to become high school teachers, which pays a relatively lower wage to athletes...."

Survey data from 2003 found that former college athletes are found to have higer wages on average but the positive wage premiums are distributed differently than non-college athletes.

The Sports Illustrated example you cited is interesting and I have no doubt it is applicable to the tiny sliver of college athletes who actually are able to make a living (for a short while anyways) professionally.

 

[LanderPoke]

Giving kids all this money is economic stimulus lol