Anyone thinking that any college program of any significance isn't dirty is fooling themselves. With the countless millions flying around, you don't think its in teams' best interest to throw some at college players to influence their decision to go where they get the most coin?
If it was the Pac 12 (see U$C) or Big 10 (see Ohio State) I would think a penalty might happen. However, not the SEC. Maybe they'll make a player sit out half a game!?
I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
<< <i>If it was the Pac 12 (see U$C) or Big 10 (see Ohio State) I would think a penalty might happen. However, not the SEC. Maybe they'll make a player sit out half a game!? >>
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
There's no way in a million years this happens. The NCAA and big media have far too much money at stake for the SEC to be harmed in any way.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
I am not an Ohio State fan (and was raised a UCLA bruin fan/ $c hater) but I have to say right about now every Ohio State and $C fan has every right to be upset. It appears the rest of college football can do whatever they want. Ohio State and $C got pretty stiff punishments. We shall see if anything happens to T Boone State after the SI article ran.
It's almost as if the Ohio State penalty was the NCAA's way of saying 'we're cleaning up the sport!' much like MLB has tried to gloss over the PED issue with seemingly random penalties against players.
Until they start rightfully compensating players, there is going to be this type of corruption.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school. They live in the best rooms on campus. They eat the best food (better then "regular" students). Many times their meals are prepared by chefs. They receive free tutoring if needed. They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc.
As others have said, there is corruption at all major Division I schools. Sometimes the coaching staff is aware of it, but most of the time it comes from the boosters.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
Sounds good. In return, the SEC wants The Ohio State University to put together a team that won't embarrass itself in a BCS National Championship game against an SEC opponent.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school. >>
1 There is a very high cost, it is not free 2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value 3 It is nothing like being paid $100,000 or $200,000. A seat in a classroom, a bed in a dorm room and nine months worth of meals does not cost the school anywhere close to six figures. Virtually none of us would ever be willing to pay anywhere close to that amount for all the things you list. It's like if McDonald's gave their labor 50 pounds of hamburgers and french fries every week instead of a paycheck and we said "That's like being paid $20,000 per year"
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value " >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars. Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school. They live in the best rooms on campus. They eat the best food (better then "regular" students). Many times their meals are prepared by chefs. They receive free tutoring if needed. They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc.
As others have said, there is corruption at all major Division I schools. Sometimes the coaching staff is aware of it, but most of the time it comes from the boosters. >>
Who the hell are you to decide who's 'rightly compensated' and who is not? Here's a novel idea- let the free market decide that. It works for you, and it works for me, so why not let it work for a 19 year old kid with a God-given talent to play football.
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value " >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars. Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL. >>
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL.
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value " >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars. Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL. >>
A scholarship is not worth anything close to what you say it is worth. I had a family member earn a scholarship to Stanford. He never once set foot on the campus
Many of the players who don't make the NFL still help Alabama or Oklahoma State or Ohio State earn profits, so you have no clue what their free-market value is. Those years of college that don't lead to degrees aren't worth too much to them
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Having said that, it's not unreasonable to assume a backroom deal between the NFL and NCAA for a cheap farm system.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost. >>
These are two different issues. Kids may only play NCAA football because the NFL won't let them enter the draft out of high school (this is your point, and I agree 100%); however, what these kids are worth to NCAA universities is unknown, since they are not allowed to sell their services as college athletes to the highest bidder.
I always shake my head in disbelief when people defend the ridiculous idea of a kids education being all they're entitled to in college. Meanwhile they have their image sold in countless forms and they don't see a penny. Merchandising bearing their likeness generates millions yet they don't see a penny. You can't even sell your autograph but the college and the NCAA can. If it was you in that situation you'd be a fool not to want your share. If it was you risking your future earnings each day due to injury, again you'd be a fool to not want to receive some compensation upfront.
I'm undecided on the issue of kids getting some sort of compensation in college. I lean toward the fact that they are getting a scholarship- if they aren't good enough to make it to the NFL, they better wise up and use that free ride and choose a promising degree.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
I am not an Ohio State fan (and was raised a UCLA bruin fan/ $c hater) but I have to say right about now every Ohio State and $C fan has every right to be upset. It appears the rest of college football can do whatever they want. Ohio State and $C got pretty stiff punishments. >>
<< <i>I'm undecided on the issue of kids getting some sort of compensation in college. I lean toward the fact that they are getting a scholarship- if they aren't good enough to make it to the NFL, they better wise up and use that free ride and choose a promising degree.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules. >>
Fair enough, but you still haven't explained why you're undecided.
This debate has been going on for years, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it's so important that these guys be considered 'student athletes' as opposed to 'employees'. Nobody really believes that, say, Teddy Bridgewater wanted to go to L'Ville, and just so happened to be a phenomenal talent; or, in other words, nobody believes that these guys' athletic ability is purely incidental to their desire to enroll in Unversity 'A'. So why the charade? Why would a capitalistic society have such a revulsion to the idea of paying college kids cash to play sports?
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
If you want to argue that OSU has been singled out, you need to provide a motive for singling out OSU. Otherwise it just sounds like petulance.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
If you want to argue that OSU has been singled out, you need to provide a motive for singling out OSU. Otherwise it just sounds like petulance. >>
If OSU were a sec team, they probably get a slap in the wrist. Much like with Auburn a couple of years ago.
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
If you're so into "free market", then go ahead and create a minor league football league. Go get your lawyers, start up your own business. Allow the "free market" to cause you to make millions.
And here's an economics lesson. There is no such thing as a "free market". Do your homework on the ins and outs of wall street, owning a business in a big city, or running a professional athletic league. A free market is a fantasy.
Who the hell are you to decide who's 'rightly compensated' and who is not? Here's a novel idea- let the free market decide that. It works for you, and it works for me, so why not let it work for a 19 year old kid with a God-given talent to play football. >>
The revenue universities gather from football are used to help that nine year old kid who's parents are watching him die from brain cancer.
But you say let's just give all that money to some immature athlete who's going to spend it on drugs and girls.
I love people like you who can't see the big picture. The greater good of what universities can do with the revenue is better then allowing kids to blow it all. I think even 50 percent of NBA or NFL athletes mismanage their money and end up broke after their playing days are over. They spend it all on drugs, girls, and luxury. And that's exactly what an immature kid would do. I think it's better that the money go to the institution, and not to some immature kid that's going to blow it on blow and chicks.
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost. >>
These are two different issues. Kids may only play NCAA football because the NFL won't let them enter the draft out of high school (this is your point, and I agree 100%); however, what these kids are worth to NCAA universities is unknown, since they are not allowed to sell their services as college athletes to the highest bidder. >>
Guess it's a chicken and egg scenario. If the NFL didn't have a minimum year requirement, that would open up the possibility of knowing how much star athletes are truly worth. To be honest, I hope Manziel picks up where Clarett and Williams failed at overturning the court's decision this coming off-season. His family definitely has the cash to do it and they clearly don't give an eff about making waves.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
Sounds good. In return, the SEC wants The Ohio State University to put together a team that won't embarrass itself in a BCS National Championship game against an SEC opponent.
Is that a deal ? >>
At least they were in the big dance... where were your precious Wolverines?
<< <i> The revenue universities gather from football are used to help that nine year old kid who's parents are watching him die from brain cancer. >>
So your suggesting is that all the revenues from college football goes to bettering the lives of people? That it doesn't go into, say, >>
hugenewfacilities that cost tens of millions of dollars per program? You're suggesting that the money doesn't get funneled to the head coaches of these programs, who each make millions of dollars, while their players are forced to risk their careers for no compensation?
<< <i>But you say let's just give all that money to some immature athlete who's going to spend it on drugs and girls. >>
So, instead of compensating players, who you feel will all blow it on 'drugs and girls', the university should just keep every penny. That sounds fair. By the way, who are you to tell someone how they can spend their money?
<< <i>I love people like you who can't see the big picture. The greater good of what universities can do with the revenue is better then allowing kids to blow it all. I think even 50 percent of NBA or NFL athletes mismanage their money and end up broke after their playing days are over. They spend it all on drugs, girls, and luxury. And that's exactly what an immature kid would do. I think it's better that the money go to the institution, and not to some immature kid that's going to blow it on blow and chicks. >>
I love people like you who think that all athletes are secretly drug users who aren't using only because they don't have the funds to do so. I think you've watched a bit too many sports movies dramatizing the lifestyle of an athlete. Watch too many repeats of "Playmakers" maybe? But again, if they want to spend it that way, who in the heck are you or anyone else to tell them they can't?
I love how you mention NBA and NFL players, but leave out MLB. There's no shortage of MLB players who have blown through their money, but yet you conveniently leave them out. I wonder why that is?
You do realize most of these kids who take the money come from economically depressed areas, with families in need, and most of the money they do get goes back home, right? Oh wait that doesn't fit into your 'athletes are degenerates' hypothesis, so of course you don't take that into consideration.
If you're so desperate to protect these kids and this precious money (which they earned and have every right to spend how they see fit), why not set some aside into a trust fund, and let them have the rest? Give them access to free financial planning? Anything other than 'you kids are too stupid to use it so you'll get none!'
I can't get behind the notion that it's necessary to pay college athletes. There's plenty of kids that find a way to make it without a full-ride scholarship. These kids are handed quite a bit, for free from the university, because of what they do. For every 1 kid that they use to promote their team by pasting his face everywhere and making money, there are 25 other players that nobody really gives a crap about. Do you offer them varying degrees of compensation? Do they still all make the same even though the walk-on will likely never see the field? If you open it up via a capitalistic approach, wouldn't the higher profile teams be a target for most kids who want to make the most money during their college years? Doesn't that give them an unfair advantage over smaller schools with less money behind the program?
These kids have an option. Go to college and hone your craft, all while getting a free education that you'll likely need after never playing professional football, or work a menial burger-flipping job after graduating high school, trying to balance a budget, pay rent, and find time to work-out in the hopes of getting strong enough to play for an NFL team in 2 years. Most kids aren't strong enough to go directly to the NFL, or even college, so they get a personal trainer (FREE) for 3-5 years that helps them prepare for the NFL. These guys get a lot of stuff for free. The list could go on and on. In the end, does anybody who's ever paid for student loans feel bad for these kids? What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? Would any of us allowed a university to pimp us out a bit, sign a few free auto's, and play some sport in trade for a FREE education with lots of perks? Those poor student athletes.
<< <i>I can't get behind the notion that it's necessary to pay college athletes. There's plenty of kids that find a way to make it without a full-ride scholarship. These kids are handed quite a bit, for free from the university, because of what they do. For every 1 kid that they use to promote their team by pasting his face everywhere and making money, there are 25 other players that nobody really gives a crap about. Do you offer them varying degrees of compensation? Do they still all make the same even though the walk-on will likely never see the field? If you open it up via a capitalistic approach, wouldn't the higher profile teams be a target for most kids who want to make the most money during their college years? Doesn't that give them an unfair advantage over smaller schools with less money behind the program? >>
Of course it gives them an advantage, just like it does today. Do you think some small, no-name college is going to have a shot at a top tier recruit? Or does Alabama, or USC, or another big name program already have a built in advantage. This already exists, and it exists in the non-sports world as well.
<< <i>These kids have an option. Go to college and hone your craft, all while getting a free education that you'll likely need after never playing professional football, or work a menial burger-flipping job after graduating high school, trying to balance a budget, pay rent, and find time to work-out in the hopes of getting strong enough to play for an NFL team in 2 years. Most kids aren't strong enough to go directly to the NFL, or even college, so they get a personal trainer (FREE) for 3-5 years that helps them prepare for the NFL. These guys get a lot of stuff for free. The list could go on and on. In the end, does anybody who's ever paid for student loans feel bad for these kids? What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? Would any of us allowed a university to pimp us out a bit, sign a few free auto's, and play some sport in trade for a FREE education with lots of perks? Those poor student athletes. >>
You present your two options as if those are the only two available. There's a third: allow the kids to earn a wage while working as a student-athlete. If anything, removing the stress of financial burden would only make the kids BETTER students and BETTER athletes. How about another? Removing the 3 year rule from entering the NFL. If an 18 year old can go die for his country, he should be allowed to go work in the NFL if they think he can help.
While these kids are playing college football, their job IS college football. You look at the game but choose to ignore the unending hours of preparation, working out, film study, everything that goes into being a college football player. These kids are employees of the school, yet they don't get paid. They cannot get a job while under scholarship, so effectively they are locked to whatever the university wants them to do. Want to do an autograph signing of YOUR NAME and nothing to do with the university? Sorry, kid, but the school owns you now, they'll be collecting all that money.
What I find most fascinating is that you and people with similar ideas think its perfectly ok for the universities to rake in tens of millions of dollars on the backs of these kids, because they are getting a free education. Here's a pro tip, kids: the people raking in cash are the coaches. Nick Saban makes over $5 million a year to coach these kids, and that's not even counting the number of assistant coaches, trainers, etc. who all make their living on the backs of these unpaid kids.
I'll never understand the resistance some people have to fairly paying these kids.
<< <i>Of course it gives them an advantage, just like it does today. Do you think some small, no-name college is going to have a shot at a top tier recruit? Or does Alabama, or USC, or another big name program already have a built in advantage. This already exists, and it exists in the non-sports world as well. >>
They usually don't, nor would I ever suggest that. But a kid is likely to go wherever he could pull the most money to sign auto's, sell his jerseys, or whatever else he can pawn off if kids were allowed to do this stuff. Is player X more likely to sell his auto for top dollar if it's on an Alabama jersey, or a Stanford jersey?
<< <i>You present your two options as if those are the only two available. There's a third: allow the kids to earn a wage while working as a student-athlete. If anything, removing the stress of financial burden would only make the kids BETTER students and BETTER athletes. How about another? Removing the 3 year rule from entering the NFL. If an 18 year old can go die for his country, he should be allowed to go work in the NFL if they think he can help. >>
As indicated in the past, HS kids today aren't ready for the NFL. Mentally or physically. It's completely different than most other professional sports IMO. Most of these kids would be lured by quick money, which wouldn't likely be a lot for small HS kids, only to wash out in the first 2 years and have no education to fall back on. They'd be broke in no time.
<< <i>While these kids are playing college football, their job IS college football. You look at the game but choose to ignore the unending hours of preparation, working out, film study, everything that goes into being a college football player. These kids are employees of the school, yet they don't get paid. They cannot get a job while under scholarship, so effectively they are locked to whatever the university wants them to do. Want to do an autograph signing of YOUR NAME and nothing to do with the university? Sorry, kid, but the school owns you now, they'll be collecting all that money. >>
Again, ask anybody that cannot afford an education if they would be fine with an agreement like this. It's what these kids AGREE to when they sign their LOI. If they don't understand this, it's their fault. What happens if the university signs them, they stink up the joint, and never see a minute of playing time? Most still get their free education (unless they play for an SEC school -haha) and the university doesn't require them to pay back something for their education. What do you get for going to a college? Not only a free education, but FREE exposure. Guys like Manziel wouldn't even be a blip on the NFL radar had he not went to college. By doing so, he's raised his stock significantly. They put money in to this kid, as an investment, so they deserve a return IMO. Again, they're basically like stock. Some pay off, some don't.
<< <i>What I find most fascinating is that you and people with similar ideas think its perfectly ok for the universities to rake in tens of millions of dollars on the backs of these kids, because they are getting a free education. Here's a pro tip, kids: the people raking in cash are the coaches. Nick Saban makes over $5 million a year to coach these kids, and that's not even counting the number of assistant coaches, trainers, etc. who all make their living on the backs of these unpaid kids.
I'll never understand the resistance some people have to fairly paying these kids. >>
Companies do it every day. Companies pay their employees dirt while they make billions. All the heads get giant bonuses while the base employee doesn't even get a Christmas card. Some companies are kind enough to offer profit sharing, which is basically what you're suggesting here, but most don't. It is what it is. The lowly 3 star kid would have been happy with any agreement to get a free education, free works outs, free food and board, and busting his hump for nothing all while hoping to get a shot at the NFL. If he never performs past his potential, I'm sure that he's still happy with what he got. But the minute he becomes a star, he thinks that he's the reason that the stands are full and wants his piece of the pie.
Why are you so vehemently against players getting paid? That's the ultimate question. Ignore all the peripheral stuff you keep dragging up just say why you are so against players getting paid?
<< <i>Why are you so vehemently against players getting paid? That's the ultimate question. Ignore all the peripheral stuff you keep dragging up just say why you are so against players getting paid? >>
I'm all for the NCAA trying to level the playing field, not make it more lopsided than it already is. Guys getting a job for a normal rate doesn't bother me, but that's not likely what we're talking about. Once they start getting paid for all of this garbage, and likely at an inflated rate, they're professionals. Then the part of the focus about underprivileged kids possibly benefiting from a free education will be lost. It will be more of a "What can you do for me right this minute?" That wont help any of them IMO. In this day and age, an education can be invaluable. Many of these kids get a free education and don't even appreciate what they are given. Everyone is always worried about what someone else is getting. In the end, these colleges provide the platform for these kids to make a lot of money, either by going to the NFL or simply from the benefit of a free education, all because they can jump and run. Without this platform, they likely have no real chance of making millions and most will never get an education, so it's back to working at Walmart and buying lottery tickets, hoping to make it big one day.
<< <i> I'm all for the NCAA trying to level the playing field, not make it more lopsided than it already is. >>
Even if every player got paid the same amount, there would still exist a disparity in schools, just like today. Players want to go where they have the best shot at winning and/or the best locations. So the crux of your disagreement with players getting paid is that you think it will make recruiting more unfair?
<< <i> Guys getting a job for a normal rate doesn't bother me, but that's not likely what we're talking about. Once they start getting paid for all of this garbage, and likely at an inflated rate, they're professionals. >>
They're professionals now, just witout the pay. The numbers of hours they spend studying football approaches what the pros do, just without the financial security.
<< <i> Then the part of the focus about underprivileged kids possibly benefiting from a free education will be lost. It will be more of a "What can you do for me right this minute?" That wont help any of them IMO. In this day and age, an education can be invaluable. Many of these kids get a free education and don't even appreciate what they are given. Everyone is always worried about what someone else is getting. In the end, these colleges provide the platform for these kids to make a lot of money, either by going to the NFL or simply from the benefit of a free education, all because they can jump and run. Without this platform, they likely have no real chance of making millions and most will never get an education, so it's back to working at Walmart and buying lottery tickets, hoping to make it big one day. >>
Players who are compensated would more than likely be *more* successful at the collegiate level as they won't have the financial stress hanging over their heads. You continue to use this worst case outcome, suggesting the only paths for a collegiate football player is the NFL or a minimum wage job, which you have no basis in reality for using.
<< <i>I'm undecided on the issue of kids getting some sort of compensation in college. I lean toward the fact that they are getting a scholarship- if they aren't good enough to make it to the NFL, they better wise up and use that free ride and choose a promising degree.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules. >>
Fair enough, but you still haven't explained why you're undecided.
This debate has been going on for years, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it's so important that these guys be considered 'student athletes' as opposed to 'employees'. Nobody really believes that, say, Teddy Bridgewater wanted to go to L'Ville, and just so happened to be a phenomenal talent; or, in other words, nobody believes that these guys' athletic ability is purely incidental to their desire to enroll in Unversity 'A'. So why the charade? Why would a capitalistic society have such a revulsion to the idea of paying college kids cash to play sports? >>
I guess I'm undecided, but like I said above I lean towards them not getting paid. I know (and agree) that these kids are making a ton of money for the school and each play could be their last. I also know the school (although they recruited these kids to be there) is using up a limited number of spots for each of these young men and these young men should be grateful for that opportunity. I wouldn't have a problem if they were given some sort of allowance to have a little more fun- but guys that are on a football scholarship really shouldn't have too much free time.
I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned it, but if these football players get something extra, are the track & field guys next? Because, all that money that the football program makes, and many of you want to hand back to the players, is paying for all the other programs and generating money for the school's general scholarship fund.
<< <i>I can't get behind the notion that it's necessary to pay college athletes >>
There is so much money involved in major college football that teams are going to do whatever is necessary to grab a piece of that money. To get a piece of that money it is necessary to win. To win it is necessary to have towp players. To have the top players, all those envelopes stuffed with cash are necessary (along with cars, tattoos, sex, sham jobs, et cetera)
It became necessary to pay players 30 years ago. The only issue up for debate is if the current cash for players system is the best one we can come up with
<< <i>So the crux of your disagreement with players getting paid is that you think it will make recruiting more unfair? >>
Unfair recruiting is certainly a major factor.
<< <i>They're professionals now, just without the pay. The numbers of hours they spend studying football approaches what the pros do, just without the financial security. >>
Lots of kids who go to school still have to work/practice numerous hours without compensation. My wife had to work for free at hospitals during her time in school, all while still paying for her own education. It is what it is.
<< <i>Players who are compensated would more than likely be *more* successful at the collegiate level as they won't have the financial stress hanging over their heads. You continue to use this worst case outcome, suggesting the only paths for a collegiate football player is the NFL or a minimum wage job, which you have no basis in reality for using. >>
All students have financial stress. I didn't intend to say that a college football player faced those options (NFL or bust). I was suggesting that many high school kids who didn't go to college would likely be facing a minimum wage job after high school.
<< <i> What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? >>
Military
Or another job that requires a huge investment in time and effort. Then take the resources that job paid and give it to the college in exchange for an education. Which is exactly what scholarship athletes are doing: exchanging a huge investment in time and effort. So when you say it's free at no cost, it's a complete lie. There is a very high cost to the classes and books they receive. A cost far higher than you would ever be willing to pay
<< <i>It became necessary to pay players 30 years ago. >>
As long as the NCAA continues to look the other way, they make it profitable for teams to risk cheating. If you look at SMU, they never recovered from the death penalty IMO. If the NCAA continued to bury teams that cheat, or at least penalize them as they did USC and OSU, teams would be forced to reconsider the benefits of doing so. But as long as they continue to look the other way on Cam Newton, Johnny Manziel, and likely Alabama, and you simply cement what we already know. It's about the NCAA getting paid, not these players, and apparently the SEC pays them better than the BIG 10 and PAC 10.
Or another job that requires a huge investment in time and effort. Then take the resources that job paid and give it to the college in exchange for an education. Which is exactly what scholarship athletes are doing: exchanging a huge investment in time and effort. So when you say it's free at no cost, it's a complete lie. There is a very high cost to the classes and books they receive. A cost far higher than you would ever be willing to pay >>
They pay these college athletes roughly 10k-50K a year, via free college credits. It is very much like the military in that sense (free college for service), but the military guys didn't sign an agreement stating that they would get no further compensation, no matter how pathetic, for their service. The other people did.
<< <i>They pay these college athletes roughly 10k-50K a year, via free college credits. It is very much like the military in that sense (free college for service), but the military guys didn't sign an agreement stating that they would get no further compensation, no matter how pathetic, for their service. The other people did. >>
Again, when it comes at such a high cost, it is not free. To say it is free is completely wrong
Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. If Johnny Manziel never went to class and didn't accept any room/board/meals, et cetera, how much would Texas A&M have saved? It is nothing close to what you say it is. There are some people who might be willing to pay that much, but that doesn't mean an opportunity to learn about agriculture and mining is worth the same to everyone. Any other business that paid it's labor in goods and services instead of cash would violate minimum wage laws
And more importantly, what about the students? I have friends that were social pariahs and lived on PB&J/Ramen Noodles for four years. They had to maintain a certain GPA in order to qualify for grants and aid. Busted their tushies and did what they had to do just to get by. If student athletes get paid, so should everyone else.
If you're going to peek down the rabbit hole, might as well jump in.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. >>
He said $10k - $50k and that's retail per semester (ie what someone else would pay). That's not their cost per se, since it does have some profit baked in, but that's what they charge the average Joe. If you want to get into semantics, maybe reword it as opportunity cost.
Speaking of, a friend recently sent his kid to college and I was absolutely blown away to hear the expenses. Unless they go to a community or jr college, stay at home, or whatever; the days of all in cost at $5K/semester are *long* gone.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school. >>
Repeat after me:
Not every D1 football player is on scholarship. Not every D1 football player is on scholarship. Not every D1 football player is on scholarship.
Repeat after me:
Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. .
<< <i>They live in the best rooms on campus. They eat the best food (better then "regular" students). Many times their meals are prepared by chefs. They receive free tutoring if needed. They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc. >>
If the above is, in your eyes, enough for the players, why aren't the coaches working without a salary?
<< <i>Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. >>
It's mostly an accounting trick but the athletic department at every school actually DOES lay out the money for the scholarships and transfer it to the school's general fund. So the athletic department at A&M actually does cut a check for the value of Johnny Football's scholarship and sends it to the general fund for the school. And, yes, the amount sent does change based on whether the player is eligible for in-state tuition or not.
For all those so intent on football players (or other athletes) not getting paid while on scholarship, what about music students? You know, the ones on a music scholarship? You going to ban them from playing a bar gig on the weekend and getting paid? How about banning them from giving music lessons and getting paid? Or, you know, just getting a frigging job at Target? What about people on academic scholarships? You going to ban them from offering tutoring? I was on academic scholarship at Western Michigan in the early '90s and got paid $4.50 an hour to grade papers for the math dept - you going to ban that, too? If your answer to all of these is that you wouldn't change anything, you need to ask yourself why you think the rules for athletes should be different and whether that should even be legal.
I'm still waiting for someone in the anti-pay camp to tell me why they feel its ok to bar these athletes from getting paid to play. The 'fairness' idea has already been disproven; some schools are already at a distinct advantage due to prominence and location. The 'drugs and girls' argument seems petty and generalizing, and suggesting that all or even a majority of kids would turn into sex and drug addicts given some coin is far reaching at best.
What's the REAL reason you folks are so against players getting paid?
<< <i>I'm still waiting for someone in the anti-pay camp to tell me why they feel its ok to bar these athletes from getting paid to play.
What's the REAL reason you folks are so against players getting paid? >>
We are all for you wanting these kids to get paid. Just get your lawyers, enough interested investors, and begin your own minor league football league. They have minor leagues for baseball, and you can start your own minor leagues for football. Then you can pay these kids all you want.
If you are so for kids getting paid, then just spend lots of time in court, making the argument that if baseball has it, then young football athletes should have the same opportunity. After you win, get like minded people to start your new adventure.
Until then, it is what it is. Let's see some of you guys who are so gung ho for these kids to get paid actually do something about it.
<< <i>So fitz what you're saying is you have no rational objecting to college kids getting paid. Got it. >>
You are clueless. You fail to understand that these kids would get paid absolutely nothing without the institutions of higher learning (colleges). These colleges showcase these kids for the NFL.
Do you understand that Major League Baseball funds their minor league farm systems ?
All you need is to find enough guys to independently fund minor league football. But you won't find any, because independent league baseball players make pennies, and your minor league football team would fold more then likely, and all the top prospects would go back to college anyway.
Boopotts talk about the free market. Guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Go ahead all you free market guys. Invest in some minor league football. Call it the independent minor league football league, and watch it crumble faster then the USFL. Then come back here and talk about the free market all you want.
Let's hear your "rationale" or master plan of how you're going to make minor league football work. If you're not a cash cow like a major league baseball franchise that can fund it's minor league system, then you're going to have to convince some billionaire investors that they have to drop billions into a business that will probably fail in a year or two.
Let's hear your master plan Axtell. Oh, that's right, you don't have one.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
List of defunct football leagues..................
Amateur American Football Conference (AAFC) (1985–1986) American Football League, UK (AFLUK) (1985) British American Football Federation (BAFF) (1985) British American Football League (BAFL) (1986) British Independent Gridiron Conference (BIG-C) (1997) Budweiser League (1986–1989) Capital League (1987) Combined Gridiron League (CGL) (1989) National Conference Management and Marketing Association (NCMMA) (1990) National Division Management Association (NDMA) (1990–1993) Northwest & Welsh Counties American Football League (NWCAFL) (1987) South Western American Football League (SWAFL) (1988–1989) Thistle League (1987) United Kingdom American Football Association (UKAFA) (1985) United Kingdom American Football League (UKAFL) (1987–1988)
Comments
Anyone thinking that any college program of any significance isn't dirty is fooling themselves. With the countless millions flying around, you don't think its in teams' best interest to throw some at college players to influence their decision to go where they get the most coin?
Sincerely, The Ohio State University
<< <i>If it was the Pac 12 (see U$C) or Big 10 (see Ohio State) I would think a penalty might happen. However, not the SEC. Maybe they'll make a player sit out half a game!? >>
I think you mean, $€¢
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
There's no way in a million years this happens. The NCAA and big media have far too much money at stake for the SEC to be harmed in any way.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
I am not an Ohio State fan (and was raised a UCLA bruin fan/ $c hater) but I have to say right about now every Ohio State and $C fan has every right to be upset. It appears the rest of college football can do whatever they want. Ohio State and $C got pretty stiff punishments. We shall see if anything happens to T Boone State after the SI article ran.
Until they start rightfully compensating players, there is going to be this type of corruption.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school.
They live in the best rooms on campus.
They eat the best food (better then "regular" students).
Many times their meals are prepared by chefs.
They receive free tutoring if needed.
They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc.
As others have said, there is corruption at all major Division I schools. Sometimes the coaching staff is aware of it, but most of the time it comes from the boosters.
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
Sounds good. In return, the SEC wants The Ohio State University to put together a team that won't embarrass itself in a BCS National Championship game against an SEC opponent.
Is that a deal ?
<< <i>College athletes are rightly compensated.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school. >>
1 There is a very high cost, it is not free
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value
3 It is nothing like being paid $100,000 or $200,000. A seat in a classroom, a bed in a dorm room and nine months worth of meals does not cost the school anywhere close to six figures. Virtually none of us would ever be willing to pay anywhere close to that amount for all the things you list. It's like if McDonald's gave their labor 50 pounds of hamburgers and french fries every week instead of a paycheck and we said "That's like being paid $20,000 per year"
<< <i>
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value
" >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars.
Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL.
<< <i>College athletes are rightly compensated.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school.
They live in the best rooms on campus.
They eat the best food (better then "regular" students).
Many times their meals are prepared by chefs.
They receive free tutoring if needed.
They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc.
As others have said, there is corruption at all major Division I schools. Sometimes the coaching staff is aware of it, but most of the time it comes from the boosters. >>
Who the hell are you to decide who's 'rightly compensated' and who is not? Here's a novel idea- let the free market decide that. It works for you, and it works for me, so why not let it work for a 19 year old kid with a God-given talent to play football.
<< <i>
<< <i>
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value
" >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars.
Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL. >>
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL.
<< <i>
<< <i>
2 Not all compensation is "rightly" compensation. They are among the few adults in the entire country completely forbidden from being compensated based on their free-market value
" >>
95% of college football players do not make the NFL. Therefore their free-market value is 0 dollars and 0 cents. Getting a scholarship to Stanford is worth 200,000 dollars.
Unless you're John Elway or Andrew Luck, you're not making it in the NFL. >>
A scholarship is not worth anything close to what you say it is worth. I had a family member earn a scholarship to Stanford. He never once set foot on the campus
Many of the players who don't make the NFL still help Alabama or Oklahoma State or Ohio State earn profits, so you have no clue what their free-market value is. Those years of college that don't lead to degrees aren't worth too much to them
<< <i>It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost.
<< <i>
<< <i>It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost. >>
These are two different issues. Kids may only play NCAA football because the NFL won't let them enter the draft out of high school (this is your point, and I agree 100%); however, what these kids are worth to NCAA universities is unknown, since they are not allowed to sell their services as college athletes to the highest bidder.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules.
<< <i>
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
I am not an Ohio State fan (and was raised a UCLA bruin fan/ $c hater) but I have to say right about now every Ohio State and $C fan has every right to be upset. It appears the rest of college football can do whatever they want. Ohio State and $C got pretty stiff punishments. >>
Indeed.
<< <i>I'm undecided on the issue of kids getting some sort of compensation in college. I lean toward the fact that they are getting a scholarship- if they aren't good enough to make it to the NFL, they better wise up and use that free ride and choose a promising degree.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules. >>
Fair enough, but you still haven't explained why you're undecided.
This debate has been going on for years, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it's so important that these guys be considered 'student athletes' as opposed to 'employees'. Nobody really believes that, say, Teddy Bridgewater wanted to go to L'Ville, and just so happened to be a phenomenal talent; or, in other words, nobody believes that these guys' athletic ability is purely incidental to their desire to enroll in Unversity 'A'. So why the charade? Why would a capitalistic society have such a revulsion to the idea of paying college kids cash to play sports?
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
If you want to argue that OSU has been singled out, you need to provide a motive for singling out OSU. Otherwise it just sounds like petulance.
<< <i>
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
If you want to argue that OSU has been singled out, you need to provide a motive for singling out OSU. Otherwise it just sounds like petulance. >>
If OSU were a sec team, they probably get a slap in the wrist. Much like with Auburn a couple of years ago.
<< <i>
Uh, no. Their 'free market value' is what boosters, athletic directors, etc. would pay these guys to play at their school if not for these NCAA restrictions. It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
If you're so into "free market", then go ahead and create a minor league football league. Go get your lawyers, start up your own business.
Allow the "free market" to cause you to make millions.
And here's an economics lesson. There is no such thing as a "free market". Do your homework on the ins and outs of wall street, owning a business in a big city, or
running a professional athletic league. A free market is a fantasy.
<< <i>
Who the hell are you to decide who's 'rightly compensated' and who is not? Here's a novel idea- let the free market decide that. It works for you, and it works for me, so why not let it work for a 19 year old kid with a God-given talent to play football. >>
The revenue universities gather from football are used to help that nine year old kid who's parents are watching him die from brain cancer.
But you say let's just give all that money to some immature athlete who's going to spend it on drugs and girls.
I love people like you who can't see the big picture. The greater good of what universities can do with the revenue is better then allowing kids to blow it all. I think even 50 percent of NBA or NFL athletes mismanage their money and end up broke after their playing days are over. They spend it all on drugs, girls, and luxury. And that's exactly what an immature kid would do. I think it's better that the money go to the institution, and not to some immature kid that's going to blow it on blow and chicks.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It has nothing to do with the NFL. >>
In the end, it has everything to do with the NFL. Colleges aren't forcing kids to enroll, it's the NFL that has a minimum '3 years out of high school' rule. Clarett and Williams both sued for discrimination and lost. >>
These are two different issues. Kids may only play NCAA football because the NFL won't let them enter the draft out of high school (this is your point, and I agree 100%); however, what these kids are worth to NCAA universities is unknown, since they are not allowed to sell their services as college athletes to the highest bidder. >>
Guess it's a chicken and egg scenario. If the NFL didn't have a minimum year requirement, that would open up the possibility of knowing how much star athletes are truly worth. To be honest, I hope Manziel picks up where Clarett and Williams failed at overturning the court's decision this coming off-season. His family definitely has the cash to do it and they clearly don't give an eff about making waves.
<< <i>
<< <i>I want their wins vacated (included their bowl wins), bowl money taken away, I want some of their scholarships taken away, I want them to have a future bowl ban, and I want their head coaches to resign.
Sincerely, The Ohio State University >>
Sounds good. In return, the SEC wants The Ohio State University to put together a team that won't embarrass itself in a BCS National Championship game against an SEC opponent.
Is that a deal ?
At least they were in the big dance... where were your precious Wolverines?
<< <i>
The revenue universities gather from football are used to help that nine year old kid who's parents are watching him die from brain cancer.
>>
So your suggesting is that all the revenues from college football goes to bettering the lives of people? That it doesn't go into, say, >>
huge new facilities that cost tens of millions of dollars per program? You're suggesting that the money doesn't get funneled to the head coaches of these programs, who each make millions of dollars, while their players are forced to risk their careers for no compensation?
<< <i>But you say let's just give all that money to some immature athlete who's going to spend it on drugs and girls. >>
So, instead of compensating players, who you feel will all blow it on 'drugs and girls', the university should just keep every penny. That sounds fair. By the way, who are you to tell someone how they can spend their money?
<< <i>I love people like you who can't see the big picture. The greater good of what universities can do with the revenue is better then allowing kids to blow it all. I think even 50 percent of NBA or NFL athletes mismanage their money and end up broke after their playing days are over. They spend it all on drugs, girls, and luxury. And that's exactly what an immature kid would do. I think it's better that the money go to the institution, and not to some immature kid that's going to blow it on blow and chicks. >>
I love people like you who think that all athletes are secretly drug users who aren't using only because they don't have the funds to do so. I think you've watched a bit too many sports movies dramatizing the lifestyle of an athlete. Watch too many repeats of "Playmakers" maybe? But again, if they want to spend it that way, who in the heck are you or anyone else to tell them they can't?
I love how you mention NBA and NFL players, but leave out MLB. There's no shortage of MLB players who have blown through their money, but yet you conveniently leave them out. I wonder why that is?
You do realize most of these kids who take the money come from economically depressed areas, with families in need, and most of the money they do get goes back home, right? Oh wait that doesn't fit into your 'athletes are degenerates' hypothesis, so of course you don't take that into consideration.
If you're so desperate to protect these kids and this precious money (which they earned and have every right to spend how they see fit), why not set some aside into a trust fund, and let them have the rest? Give them access to free financial planning? Anything other than 'you kids are too stupid to use it so you'll get none!'
These kids have an option. Go to college and hone your craft, all while getting a free education that you'll likely need after never playing professional football, or work a menial burger-flipping job after graduating high school, trying to balance a budget, pay rent, and find time to work-out in the hopes of getting strong enough to play for an NFL team in 2 years. Most kids aren't strong enough to go directly to the NFL, or even college, so they get a personal trainer (FREE) for 3-5 years that helps them prepare for the NFL. These guys get a lot of stuff for free. The list could go on and on. In the end, does anybody who's ever paid for student loans feel bad for these kids? What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? Would any of us allowed a university to pimp us out a bit, sign a few free auto's, and play some sport in trade for a FREE education with lots of perks? Those poor student athletes.
<< <i>I can't get behind the notion that it's necessary to pay college athletes. There's plenty of kids that find a way to make it without a full-ride scholarship. These kids are handed quite a bit, for free from the university, because of what they do. For every 1 kid that they use to promote their team by pasting his face everywhere and making money, there are 25 other players that nobody really gives a crap about. Do you offer them varying degrees of compensation? Do they still all make the same even though the walk-on will likely never see the field? If you open it up via a capitalistic approach, wouldn't the higher profile teams be a target for most kids who want to make the most money during their college years? Doesn't that give them an unfair advantage over smaller schools with less money behind the program? >>
Of course it gives them an advantage, just like it does today. Do you think some small, no-name college is going to have a shot at a top tier recruit? Or does Alabama, or USC, or another big name program already have a built in advantage. This already exists, and it exists in the non-sports world as well.
<< <i>These kids have an option. Go to college and hone your craft, all while getting a free education that you'll likely need after never playing professional football, or work a menial burger-flipping job after graduating high school, trying to balance a budget, pay rent, and find time to work-out in the hopes of getting strong enough to play for an NFL team in 2 years. Most kids aren't strong enough to go directly to the NFL, or even college, so they get a personal trainer (FREE) for 3-5 years that helps them prepare for the NFL. These guys get a lot of stuff for free. The list could go on and on. In the end, does anybody who's ever paid for student loans feel bad for these kids? What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? Would any of us allowed a university to pimp us out a bit, sign a few free auto's, and play some sport in trade for a FREE education with lots of perks? Those poor student athletes. >>
You present your two options as if those are the only two available. There's a third: allow the kids to earn a wage while working as a student-athlete. If anything, removing the stress of financial burden would only make the kids BETTER students and BETTER athletes. How about another? Removing the 3 year rule from entering the NFL. If an 18 year old can go die for his country, he should be allowed to go work in the NFL if they think he can help.
While these kids are playing college football, their job IS college football. You look at the game but choose to ignore the unending hours of preparation, working out, film study, everything that goes into being a college football player. These kids are employees of the school, yet they don't get paid. They cannot get a job while under scholarship, so effectively they are locked to whatever the university wants them to do. Want to do an autograph signing of YOUR NAME and nothing to do with the university? Sorry, kid, but the school owns you now, they'll be collecting all that money.
What I find most fascinating is that you and people with similar ideas think its perfectly ok for the universities to rake in tens of millions of dollars on the backs of these kids, because they are getting a free education. Here's a pro tip, kids: the people raking in cash are the coaches. Nick Saban makes over $5 million a year to coach these kids, and that's not even counting the number of assistant coaches, trainers, etc. who all make their living on the backs of these unpaid kids.
I'll never understand the resistance some people have to fairly paying these kids.
<< <i>Of course it gives them an advantage, just like it does today. Do you think some small, no-name college is going to have a shot at a top tier recruit? Or does Alabama, or USC, or another big name program already have a built in advantage. This already exists, and it exists in the non-sports world as well. >>
They usually don't, nor would I ever suggest that. But a kid is likely to go wherever he could pull the most money to sign auto's, sell his jerseys, or whatever else he can pawn off if kids were allowed to do this stuff. Is player X more likely to sell his auto for top dollar if it's on an Alabama jersey, or a Stanford jersey?
<< <i>You present your two options as if those are the only two available. There's a third: allow the kids to earn a wage while working as a student-athlete. If anything, removing the stress of financial burden would only make the kids BETTER students and BETTER athletes. How about another? Removing the 3 year rule from entering the NFL. If an 18 year old can go die for his country, he should be allowed to go work in the NFL if they think he can help. >>
As indicated in the past, HS kids today aren't ready for the NFL. Mentally or physically. It's completely different than most other professional sports IMO. Most of these kids would be lured by quick money, which wouldn't likely be a lot for small HS kids, only to wash out in the first 2 years and have no education to fall back on. They'd be broke in no time.
<< <i>While these kids are playing college football, their job IS college football. You look at the game but choose to ignore the unending hours of preparation, working out, film study, everything that goes into being a college football player. These kids are employees of the school, yet they don't get paid. They cannot get a job while under scholarship, so effectively they are locked to whatever the university wants them to do. Want to do an autograph signing of YOUR NAME and nothing to do with the university? Sorry, kid, but the school owns you now, they'll be collecting all that money. >>
Again, ask anybody that cannot afford an education if they would be fine with an agreement like this. It's what these kids AGREE to when they sign their LOI. If they don't understand this, it's their fault. What happens if the university signs them, they stink up the joint, and never see a minute of playing time? Most still get their free education (unless they play for an SEC school -haha) and the university doesn't require them to pay back something for their education. What do you get for going to a college? Not only a free education, but FREE exposure. Guys like Manziel wouldn't even be a blip on the NFL radar had he not went to college. By doing so, he's raised his stock significantly. They put money in to this kid, as an investment, so they deserve a return IMO. Again, they're basically like stock. Some pay off, some don't.
<< <i>What I find most fascinating is that you and people with similar ideas think its perfectly ok for the universities to rake in tens of millions of dollars on the backs of these kids, because they are getting a free education. Here's a pro tip, kids: the people raking in cash are the coaches. Nick Saban makes over $5 million a year to coach these kids, and that's not even counting the number of assistant coaches, trainers, etc. who all make their living on the backs of these unpaid kids.
I'll never understand the resistance some people have to fairly paying these kids. >>
Companies do it every day. Companies pay their employees dirt while they make billions. All the heads get giant bonuses while the base employee doesn't even get a Christmas card. Some companies are kind enough to offer profit sharing, which is basically what you're suggesting here, but most don't. It is what it is. The lowly 3 star kid would have been happy with any agreement to get a free education, free works outs, free food and board, and busting his hump for nothing all while hoping to get a shot at the NFL. If he never performs past his potential, I'm sure that he's still happy with what he got. But the minute he becomes a star, he thinks that he's the reason that the stands are full and wants his piece of the pie.
<< <i>Why are you so vehemently against players getting paid? That's the ultimate question. Ignore all the peripheral stuff you keep dragging up just say why you are so against players getting paid? >>
I'm all for the NCAA trying to level the playing field, not make it more lopsided than it already is. Guys getting a job for a normal rate doesn't bother me, but that's not likely what we're talking about. Once they start getting paid for all of this garbage, and likely at an inflated rate, they're professionals. Then the part of the focus about underprivileged kids possibly benefiting from a free education will be lost. It will be more of a "What can you do for me right this minute?" That wont help any of them IMO. In this day and age, an education can be invaluable. Many of these kids get a free education and don't even appreciate what they are given. Everyone is always worried about what someone else is getting. In the end, these colleges provide the platform for these kids to make a lot of money, either by going to the NFL or simply from the benefit of a free education, all because they can jump and run. Without this platform, they likely have no real chance of making millions and most will never get an education, so it's back to working at Walmart and buying lottery tickets, hoping to make it big one day.
<< <i>
I'm all for the NCAA trying to level the playing field, not make it more lopsided than it already is. >>
Even if every player got paid the same amount, there would still exist a disparity in schools, just like today. Players want to go where they have the best shot at winning and/or the best locations. So the crux of your disagreement with players getting paid is that you think it will make recruiting more unfair?
<< <i> Guys getting a job for a normal rate doesn't bother me, but that's not likely what we're talking about. Once they start getting paid for all of this garbage, and likely at an inflated rate, they're professionals. >>
They're professionals now, just witout the pay. The numbers of hours they spend studying football approaches what the pros do, just without the financial security.
<< <i> Then the part of the focus about underprivileged kids possibly benefiting from a free education will be lost. It will be more of a "What can you do for me right this minute?" That wont help any of them IMO. In this day and age, an education can be invaluable. Many of these kids get a free education and don't even appreciate what they are given. Everyone is always worried about what someone else is getting. In the end, these colleges provide the platform for these kids to make a lot of money, either by going to the NFL or simply from the benefit of a free education, all because they can jump and run. Without this platform, they likely have no real chance of making millions and most will never get an education, so it's back to working at Walmart and buying lottery tickets, hoping to make it big one day. >>
Players who are compensated would more than likely be *more* successful at the collegiate level as they won't have the financial stress hanging over their heads. You continue to use this worst case outcome, suggesting the only paths for a collegiate football player is the NFL or a minimum wage job, which you have no basis in reality for using.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm undecided on the issue of kids getting some sort of compensation in college. I lean toward the fact that they are getting a scholarship- if they aren't good enough to make it to the NFL, they better wise up and use that free ride and choose a promising degree.
I know the schools, networks, and countless others make loads of cash off of their performance on the field. If the potential athletes don't like the fact that an SEC school (or whoever) is making millions in part to them, then perhaps they should go to a smaller school and take their chances with their ability rather than breaking the established rules. >>
Fair enough, but you still haven't explained why you're undecided.
This debate has been going on for years, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why it's so important that these guys be considered 'student athletes' as opposed to 'employees'. Nobody really believes that, say, Teddy Bridgewater wanted to go to L'Ville, and just so happened to be a phenomenal talent; or, in other words, nobody believes that these guys' athletic ability is purely incidental to their desire to enroll in Unversity 'A'. So why the charade? Why would a capitalistic society have such a revulsion to the idea of paying college kids cash to play sports? >>
I guess I'm undecided, but like I said above I lean towards them not getting paid. I know (and agree) that these kids are making a ton of money for the school and each play could be their last. I also know the school (although they recruited these kids to be there) is using up a limited number of spots for each of these young men and these young men should be grateful for that opportunity. I wouldn't have a problem if they were given some sort of allowance to have a little more fun- but guys that are on a football scholarship really shouldn't have too much free time.
I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned it, but if these football players get something extra, are the track & field guys next? Because, all that money that the football program makes, and many of you want to hand back to the players, is paying for all the other programs and generating money for the school's general scholarship fund.
<< <i>I can't get behind the notion that it's necessary to pay college athletes >>
There is so much money involved in major college football that teams are going to do whatever is necessary to grab a piece of that money. To get a piece of that money it is necessary to win. To win it is necessary to have towp players. To have the top players, all those envelopes stuffed with cash are necessary (along with cars, tattoos, sex, sham jobs, et cetera)
It became necessary to pay players 30 years ago. The only issue up for debate is if the current cash for players system is the best one we can come up with
<< <i>So the crux of your disagreement with players getting paid is that you think it will make recruiting more unfair? >>
Unfair recruiting is certainly a major factor.
<< <i>They're professionals now, just without the pay. The numbers of hours they spend studying football approaches what the pros do, just without the financial security. >>
Lots of kids who go to school still have to work/practice numerous hours without compensation. My wife had to work for free at hospitals during her time in school, all while still paying for her own education. It is what it is.
<< <i>Players who are compensated would more than likely be *more* successful at the collegiate level as they won't have the financial stress hanging over their heads. You continue to use this worst case outcome, suggesting the only paths for a collegiate football player is the NFL or a minimum wage job, which you have no basis in reality for using. >>
All students have financial stress. I didn't intend to say that a college football player faced those options (NFL or bust). I was suggesting that many high school kids who didn't go to college would likely be facing a minimum wage job after high school.
<< <i> What about anybody who was never able to go to college because they couldn't afford it? >>
Military
Or another job that requires a huge investment in time and effort. Then take the resources that job paid and give it to the college in exchange for an education. Which is exactly what scholarship athletes are doing: exchanging a huge investment in time and effort. So when you say it's free at no cost, it's a complete lie. There is a very high cost to the classes and books they receive. A cost far higher than you would ever be willing to pay
<< <i>It became necessary to pay players 30 years ago. >>
As long as the NCAA continues to look the other way, they make it profitable for teams to risk cheating. If you look at SMU, they never recovered from the death penalty IMO. If the NCAA continued to bury teams that cheat, or at least penalize them as they did USC and OSU, teams would be forced to reconsider the benefits of doing so. But as long as they continue to look the other way on Cam Newton, Johnny Manziel, and likely Alabama, and you simply cement what we already know. It's about the NCAA getting paid, not these players, and apparently the SEC pays them better than the BIG 10 and PAC 10.
<< <i>Military
Or another job that requires a huge investment in time and effort. Then take the resources that job paid and give it to the college in exchange for an education. Which is exactly what scholarship athletes are doing: exchanging a huge investment in time and effort. So when you say it's free at no cost, it's a complete lie. There is a very high cost to the classes and books they receive. A cost far higher than you would ever be willing to pay >>
They pay these college athletes roughly 10k-50K a year, via free college credits. It is very much like the military in that sense (free college for service), but the military guys didn't sign an agreement stating that they would get no further compensation, no matter how pathetic, for their service. The other people did.
<< <i>They pay these college athletes roughly 10k-50K a year, via free college credits. It is very much like the military in that sense (free college for service), but the military guys didn't sign an agreement stating that they would get no further compensation, no matter how pathetic, for their service. The other people did. >>
Again, when it comes at such a high cost, it is not free. To say it is free is completely wrong
Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. If Johnny Manziel never went to class and didn't accept any room/board/meals, et cetera, how much would Texas A&M have saved? It is nothing close to what you say it is. There are some people who might be willing to pay that much, but that doesn't mean an opportunity to learn about agriculture and mining is worth the same to everyone. Any other business that paid it's labor in goods and services instead of cash would violate minimum wage laws
<< <i>are the track & field guys next? >>
And more importantly, what about the students? I have friends that were social pariahs and lived on PB&J/Ramen Noodles for four years. They had to maintain a certain GPA in order to qualify for grants and aid. Busted their tushies and did what they had to do just to get by. If student athletes get paid, so should everyone else.
If you're going to peek down the rabbit hole, might as well jump in.
<< <i>Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. >>
He said $10k - $50k and that's retail per semester (ie what someone else would pay). That's not their cost per se, since it does have some profit baked in, but that's what they charge the average Joe. If you want to get into semantics, maybe reword it as opportunity cost.
Speaking of, a friend recently sent his kid to college and I was absolutely blown away to hear the expenses. Unless they go to a community or jr college, stay at home, or whatever; the days of all in cost at $5K/semester are *long* gone.
<< <i>College athletes are rightly compensated.
They get a free education. That is like being paid anywhere from 100k to 200k for a Division I school.
>>
Repeat after me:
Not every D1 football player is on scholarship. Not every D1 football player is on scholarship. Not every D1 football player is on scholarship.
Repeat after me:
Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. Not every D1 player on scholarship has a full ride scholarship. .
<< <i>They live in the best rooms on campus.
They eat the best food (better then "regular" students).
Many times their meals are prepared by chefs.
They receive free tutoring if needed.
They are also afforded many other special privileges that others do not get.
Their parents receive gifts. Sometimes cars, houses, good paying jobs, etc. etc. >>
If the above is, in your eyes, enough for the players, why aren't the coaches working without a salary?
<< <i>Again, it doesn't cost the school anywhere close to $50,000 to put someone in a classroom for 12 hours per week, give them nine months worth of meals and a few books. >>
It's mostly an accounting trick but the athletic department at every school actually DOES lay out the money for the scholarships and transfer it to the school's general fund. So the athletic department at A&M actually does cut a check for the value of Johnny Football's scholarship and sends it to the general fund for the school. And, yes, the amount sent does change based on whether the player is eligible for in-state tuition or not.
For all those so intent on football players (or other athletes) not getting paid while on scholarship, what about music students? You know, the ones on a music scholarship? You going to ban them from playing a bar gig on the weekend and getting paid? How about banning them from giving music lessons and getting paid? Or, you know, just getting a frigging job at Target? What about people on academic scholarships? You going to ban them from offering tutoring? I was on academic scholarship at Western Michigan in the early '90s and got paid $4.50 an hour to grade papers for the math dept - you going to ban that, too? If your answer to all of these is that you wouldn't change anything, you need to ask yourself why you think the rules for athletes should be different and whether that should even be legal.
What's the REAL reason you folks are so against players getting paid?
<< <i>I'm still waiting for someone in the anti-pay camp to tell me why they feel its ok to bar these athletes from getting paid to play.
What's the REAL reason you folks are so against players getting paid? >>
We are all for you wanting these kids to get paid. Just get your lawyers, enough interested investors, and begin your own minor league football league.
They have minor leagues for baseball, and you can start your own minor leagues for football.
Then you can pay these kids all you want.
If you are so for kids getting paid, then just spend lots of time in court, making the argument that if baseball has it, then young football athletes should have
the same opportunity. After you win, get like minded people to start your new adventure.
Until then, it is what it is. Let's see some of you guys who are so gung ho for these kids to get paid actually do something about it.
<< <i>So fitz what you're saying is you have no rational objecting to college kids getting paid. Got it. >>
You are clueless. You fail to understand that these kids would get paid absolutely nothing without the institutions of higher learning (colleges). These colleges showcase these
kids for the NFL.
Do you understand that Major League Baseball funds their minor league farm systems ?
All you need is to find enough guys to independently fund minor league football. But you won't find any, because independent league baseball players make pennies,
and your minor league football team would fold more then likely, and all the top prospects would go back to college anyway.
Boopotts talk about the free market. Guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Go ahead all you free market guys. Invest in some minor league football. Call it the independent minor league football league, and watch it crumble faster then the USFL.
Then come back here and talk about the free market all you want.
Let's hear your "rationale" or master plan of how you're going to make minor league football work.
If you're not a cash cow like a major league baseball franchise that can fund it's minor league system, then
you're going to have to convince some billionaire investors that they have to drop billions into a business that will probably fail in a year or two.
Let's hear your master plan Axtell. Oh, that's right, you don't have one.
Amateur American Football Conference (AAFC) (1985–1986)
American Football League, UK (AFLUK) (1985)
British American Football Federation (BAFF) (1985)
British American Football League (BAFL) (1986)
British Independent Gridiron Conference (BIG-C) (1997)
Budweiser League (1986–1989)
Capital League (1987)
Combined Gridiron League (CGL) (1989)
National Conference Management and Marketing Association (NCMMA) (1990)
National Division Management Association (NDMA) (1990–1993)
Northwest & Welsh Counties American Football League (NWCAFL) (1987)
South Western American Football League (SWAFL) (1988–1989)
Thistle League (1987)
United Kingdom American Football Association (UKAFA) (1985)
United Kingdom American Football League (UKAFL) (1987–1988)