<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue.
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
Face it many leave the school just as dumb as when they arrived. Pay them for getting pounded into the turf, play after play. >>
but......but MGLICKER.......what if they.......are getting help from really nice, helpful people just because they are good at football? are those wages, too?
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
Face it many leave the school just as dumb as when they arrived. Pay them for getting pounded into the turf, play after play. >>
And, whose fault is it that they leave as dumb as when they arrived? The school?
Perhaps the school can accept these athletes to their institution, pay them, allow them to play football. Of course, after all of that the athlete is required to pay tuition, equipment fees, medical expenses, etc, etc
<< <i>And, whose fault is it that they leave as dumb as when they arrived? The school? >>
Not everyone is equipped to benefit from higher education.
Was sad and unfortunate when I lived near Detroit. Only the brightest students gained admission to the U of M. Exception of course was the oftentime illiterate football and basketball players. They really had little chance with the tough educational standards.
Michigan State at least, was more attuned to the average student and they could have fared better there.
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
But it's not a 4 year free ride. They aren't allowed to get jobs, and their work on the field results in literally millions and millions of dollars for the university and the NCAA, of which they receive exactly nothing.
If it's so great, why doesn't the coach work for free? Why do the Nick Sabans of the world get millions annually in compensation? He gets the same 'free ride' these athletes do, yet the coaches and their staffs all get paid.
I have yet to see a single, solitary opponent to students getting their rightful pay offer a compelling reason why they shouldn't get compensated (and I'm sorry, but 'they get a scholarship! doesn't count).
while we're at it, here's another question for ya: If these so-called paid professionals were underperforming, would the U have the right fire any player or trade that player to another university?
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
I must have missed the part where they were forced into something.
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
I must have missed the part where they were forced into something. >>
Good point JHS5120. It is not so much a question of forcing the schools to pay the players, but allowing them to. Once they are allowed to bid for the talent, market rates will prevail.
and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university.
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage?
<< <i>Good point JHS5120. It is not so much a question of forcing the schools to pay the players, but allowing them to. Once they are allowed to bid for the talent, market rates will prevail. >>
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student".
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage?
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
yes, i did answer your question. i am opposed because they are already being PAID, not employed. please reread my prior response. then read this:
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
yes, i did answer your question. i am opposed because they are already being PAID, not employed. please reread my prior response. then read this:
<< <i>OK-- then why are you against these players being employed? >>
not necessarily against it. but, are we ready to accept all other facets of employment which accompany this topic. let's go back to the issue of performance.
can players then be fired for underperforming? what would that do to their confidence while still trying to juggle a class schedule with frat parties?
or could they be docked a certain amount of pay if a contractual agreement states that they must perform up to a specific standard?
what about their personal lives and representation of the school? player commits a felony, does the U jump in and get them the hottest attorney available to save itself the embarrassment of playing the title game without its star player?
<< <i>Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
They are receiving a fair wage. If they weren't then they wouldn't be playing... duh?
There's a huge difference between receiving a "fair" wage and simply getting more money. When these players first enter the league they are sat down and told EXACTLY what their salary will be. They are reminded that no one is forcing these young men and women to join their team and then they are given a pen. Now, how "fair" is it that they then start complaining about not receiving more money?
<< <i>OK-- then why are you against these players being employed? >>
not necessarily against it. but, are we ready to accept all other facets of employment which accompany this topic. let's go back to the issue of performance.
can players then be fired for underperforming? what would that do to their confidence while still trying to juggle a class schedule with frat parties?
or could they be docked a certain amount of pay if a contractual agreement states that they must perform up to a specific standard?
what about their personal lives and representation of the school? player commits a felony, does the U jump in and get them the hottest attorney available to save itself the embarrassment of playing the title game without its star player?
just asking. >>
I don't know why you're arguing as if these other facets you've mentioned are somehow necessary conditions of employment. Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? No, or at least not so far as I know. Ditto for athletes in every other major sport. And similar considerations apply to pay docking, etc.
The simple solution is to quit requiring anyone who plays a men's basketball or football from having to register as a student. They can sign a contract, get paid, play for as many years as they want, etc. For the life of me I can't see why a policy like this would be objectionable. Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet.
If, however, for some reason, we just HAVE to have these guys enrolled in a couple basket weaving classes in order to honor the purity of college athletics, then allow these kids to sign a binding contract with the college, the terms of which are wholly negotiable between the two parties of interest.
<< <i>More than 95% of division 1 schools would need to borrow money from students and tax payers to pay these salaries.
Is that right? >>
You've said this before, and I can't make sense of it. What do you mean, 'borrow'-- Selling bonds to the public? If so, then yes-- absolutely it makes sense. The University sells a bond, and someone buys it and gets paid back with interest. The U woudn't sell it if the capital they raise from the bond issue wasn't worth more to them than the NPV of the total payments, so what's not to like?
Beyond that, where is your source for this "borrowing" claim?
<< <i>Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? >>
cut? waived? traded?
i don't know why i'm arguing either. i don't really care.
i'm fond of the idea Dorfman presents in his article regarding a minor league system like they have in MLB.
essentially, the NFL is getting its farming done for free. >>
I think all MLB deals are guaranteed. As for the NFL, the one thing that IS guaranteed is the signing bonus. I'm sure most NCAA football players would be just fine with collecting a check with a lot of zeroes tacked on the end and then taking their chances with being cut if they under perform; and even if they wouldn't be, we should at least give them that choice. If they'd rather play for three hots, a cot, and free tuition then they would be more than welcome to strike that deal instead.
Edit to add: I think Dorfman-- like so many people who weigh in on this topic- is confusing the 'option' to pay players with the 'obligation' to pay players. I'm all for the former, but completely against the latter. As for the rest of his article, I think he's on the right track re: the ridiculous league entry requirements imposed by the major sports leagues. My solution is to completely abandon the draft system altogether, though his solution also has merits.
<< <i>Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? >>
cut? waived? traded? >>
They still receive their money if any of these things happen. MLB, like the NBA, has guaranteed contracts.
It seems to me the people clinging to the argument with college players not getting paid want to harken back to the 'good ole days' of years past. That somehow keeping up this 'tradition' of not paying players somehow makes the game more pure. Then they tune in to their pay TV service, watch every part of their college game of choice be sponsored, and be subjected to endless advertisments during the game. And then they want to voice their objection to the players getting their fair cut?
<< <i>essentially, the NFL is getting its farming done for free. >>
Meanwhile, colleges and the NCAA are raking in millions and millions of dollars at the same time, all while the employees have to work for no compensation.
<< <i>Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet. >>
i needed to digest this and then read it again to find the appropriate humor within.
the honest truth is that when i'm watching accomplished college athletes perform, i secretly wonder if they attend any classes at all. how else could they be so damn good at sports unless that's all they were doing?
this is an extreme and sarcastic example, but do you wonder how many people actually think this?
<< <i>Meanwhile, colleges and the NCAA are raking in millions and millions of dollars at the same time, all while the employees have to work for no compensation. >>
Besides, these players are not employees. If they were than they would be entitled to wages. I am not an employee of my local club softball team, I'm simply a player
<< <i>Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet. >>
i needed to digest this and then read it again to find the appropriate humor within.
the honest truth is that when i'm watching accomplished college athletes perform, i secretly wonder if they attend any classes at all. how else could they be so damn good at sports unless that's all they were doing?
this is an extreme and sarcastic example, but do you wonder how many people actually think this? >>
There must be people out there whose appreciation for college sports is tied directly to the fact that the players are at least peripherally involved in the school's academic side (or at least have been involved at some point, as evidenced by the acceptance of players who have already graduated), though I fail to see why anyone would see that as an indispensable facet of college sports. It certainly isn't a requirement in Mexico, where the largest University soccer teams (UNAM and UNAL, to name just two- there may be more) are rostered entirely by professionals, and those teams seem to be doing just fine.
ya know, almost every NCAA football team is about 5 or 6 knee injuries away from being terrible, the point being the separation between greatness and mediocrity isn't that far.
NCAA basketball loses excellent talent after one year of eligibility. NCAA baseball has little left to offer after all the high school talent gets taken in the draft.
you could take away that cream-of-the-crop talent and deplete what makes college football so special to the people who support it. then, the crowds go away along with financial support from alumni and sponsors.
the whole pay-to-play argument flies out the window. and the remaining players can wear those little colorful Velcro strips for all anyone cares.
If the college football players won their case and were able to get paid, then I could see the major colleges signing players to 1 year contracts, unless they are an absolute beast coming out of high school, then they may get 2 or more years paid salary.
80% of college athletes come into D-1 football programs as "marginal" athletes. The other 20% are top of the line players who are most likely 5 Star recruits coming out of high school.
I could see a lot of these 80 percenters only getting 1 year contracts, getting cut after one year, and the major colleges signing other players to fill their spots.
I could see many of these paid athletes losing their pay for play status after just one year, and they'd be saying to themselves that they wish they had their 4 year scholarship back.
Under the NFL collective bargaining agreement, NFL FIRST ROUND draft picks can sign for 4 years only, with an optional 5th year. Many NFL players who aren't first round sign for much fewer years, with many only signing 1 year deals.
This type of structure could kill college kids if they were not "FIRST ROUND" material and could not sign for 4 years.
"""I could see many of these paid athletes losing their pay for play status after just one year, and they'd be saying to themselves that they wish they had their 4 year scholarship back."""
Capitalism has its drawbacks for sure. Some win, others lose. Time to quit pretending though that the academic institutions are somehow exempt.
I am tired of the 'X% of athletic departments lose money'. These are the entire departments, not the profitable ones like football and basketball. Just like it is now, there are the haves and have nots - paying athletes money wouldn't change that dynamic. If teams were allowed to pay for players, the backroom booster money would instead be legitimized and be accounted for.
It would force schools to prioritize their spending - would you rather have an elite coach like Saban making $7 million a year, or a second- or third-tier coaching making $3million and use that money for better players?
It's beyond time for these athletes to be paid for their performance on the field - just like their coaches do.
<< <i>they are already being PAID with an education >>
If they were actually getting paid, they'd be able to order a pizza with their earnings. Can't exactly do that with a scholarship, can you? Again, it goes back to the example mentioned of coaches - if the system is so great, why aren't the coaches "paid" in room/board/tuition?
Fact is, the players are all employees. They are required to sign one year contracts - that's right, scholarships are year-to-year so, yes, they can already get docked for non-performance, felonies and the like. They are told when to show up and where to be and what hours they will "work". They are not allowed to "work" for any other entity in the same field (i.e. they're all under non-compete clauses). They are not allowed to seek any form of compensation other than that provided by their employer, I mean school. If they wish to transfer their services to another employer, I mean school, even though they are only under one year contracts, they are required to sit out one full year before returning to their field.
If they were truly considered student-athletes, and not employees, by the schools, then there'd be no games anytime other than Friday nights and Saturdays.
And, as I always do in these conversations, let me once again remind everyone that not every Division I player has a full, or even partial, scholarship - yet the non-scholarship guys have to operate under the same restrictions regarding compensation.
Finally, if so many athletic departments are losing money, perhaps it's time to look at why. Could it be because they are overspending on facilities and coaches? Also, keep in mind that a lot of that is a paper loss. They are required to count the scholarships for the athletes as an expense - and actually do transfer money to the school's general fund, at full value, for each one. The reality is, though, the school isn't losing anything. The AD pays $45k to the general fund for the scholarship but it doesn't actually COST the school $45k for that athlete to attend classes, etc. It's all a bunch of accounting nonsense.
Two years ago a 5-star RB recruit from my hometown was arrested and convicted of theft involving a teammate during his sophomore year at Oklahoma State. Literally stole the kid's debit card and extracted $700 from his account. Soon thereafter he was dismissed from the football team and expelled from school. A judge ultimately granted him leniency via probation upon hearing his story: physical abuse as a child that resulted in the incarceration of both parents, hundreds of miles away from home sans wheels and not a cent to his name, the inability to work, and a spotless history prior to (corroborated by a number of character witnesses).
When I caught wind, I phoned my parents (who still live there) for the 411. Total shock not only from them, but the entire community. This kid basically had a key to the city during his HS years. An A-B student in the classroom and an absolute stud on the field -- his junior year he parlayed a 2,300+ yard, 36 TD season into an undefeated Class 5A championship and a #2 national ranking. His story was so compelling, in fact, that MTV rolled into town and conducted an intensive documentary project his senior year. A camera literally followed him around every second of his life for 3-4 months, a la The Real World. I'll never forget going back home and catching one of his games back in '11. During a timeout, three MTV production dudes sprinted onto the field with a ginormous boom mic in hand and hung it over the huddle. It was that surreal and that insane.
In other words, apex to nadir in a short span. As I think about this topic in its totality, I can't help but contemplate a couple of things. One, I'd hate to quantify the number of similar stories. Two, would a stipend have helped rewrite the script?
<< <i>I am tired of the 'X% of athletic departments lose money'. These are the entire departments, not the profitable ones like football and basketball. Just like it is now, there are the haves and have nots - paying athletes money wouldn't change that dynamic. If teams were allowed to pay for players, the backroom booster money would instead be legitimized and be accounted for.
It would force schools to prioritize their spending - would you rather have an elite coach like Saban making $7 million a year, or a second- or third-tier coaching making $3million and use that money for better players?
It's beyond time for these athletes to be paid for their performance on the field - just like their coaches do. >>
Do you really think coaches will take pay cuts for the players? When has this ever been the case?
In reality, Athletic Directors will cut unprofitable sports (ie. college baseball) to free up cash to sign stars. Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? Not only will competition go down in college football (higher paid coaches will flee to the NFL), but other sports will suffer.
<< <i> Do you really think coaches will take pay cuts for the players? When has this ever been the case? >>
Who was suggesting coaches would be taking pay cuts? I never said as much. I said that schools would have to weigh how much an elite coach is worth. In the new reality of paying college players, schools will have to make that determination. Schools with a budget of X will have to divvy up the pie - no longer will labor be free, they will have to weigh if paying for a coach like Saban is worth the extras of millions of dollars that could instead be going to players.
<< <i>In reality, Athletic Directors will cut unprofitable sports (ie. college baseball) to free up cash to sign stars. Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? Not only will competition go down in college football (higher paid coaches will flee to the NFL), but other sports will suffer. >>
Why would competition suffer? Why would other sports suffer? I think you'd see a shrinkage of the 125-odd BCS level teams shrink, that's for sure. And is that really such a bad thing? Wouldn't college football be better across the board if say the number of teams were cut in half? As far as the other sports suffering, I don't think that would happen either. If the number of schools suiting up football players shrinks (and it would), that money would go a hell of a lot further in other sports. Football seems like it would be (by far) the most expensive college sport (I might be wrong, but given the size of teams, the equipment, and travel expenses I don't think I am wrong).
Where's your proof that other sports would suffer? Where's your proof higher end coaches would flee to the NFL? College coaches rarely translate successfully to the NFL level.
<< <i> Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? >>
Just because someone demands it does not mean anyone else has to give in to those demands. Why not simply allow for negotiations and let the free market decide? If the college decides it is better off paying something less than $12 million, the scenario you describe will never happen. If the college believes it is better off paying that salary, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
<< <i> Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? >>
Just because someone demands it does not mean anyone else has to give in to those demands. Why not simply allow for negotiations and let the free market decide? If the college decides it is better off paying something less than $12 million, the scenario you describe will never happen. If the college believes it is better off paying that salary, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? >>
Solid and logical answer.
Folks have trouble deciding what they want schools to be. They are bastions of capitalism when the $3,000,000 coach is hired, benevolent purveyors of social service when they go crawling to the state for funding and rah rah win one for the Gipper institutions when a top tier athlete is expected to donate 4 years of performance.
I don't get why people think college athletes need to be paid. I am currently in college and I would kill to be on the baseball or football team here, and I wouldn't feel the need to be compensated for it either. It's a privilege for students to be able to play a sport while in college. They should be happy theyre even on a team, and given the opportunity. If they don't like playing and not getting paid then they can quit and just go to school like every other college kid on campus (whoa they can't do this). I personally don't want my college spending tons of extra money just to get some jock, who probably isn't even college material on an intellectual level, to come play a sport. I'd rather have athletes come who actually want to get an education first, and then play a sport as well. How about instead of paying for players to come play football, we use that money to, I don't know, lower tuitions? Improve universities? Hand out more scholarships? It just seems ridiculous to me that a kid given the opportunity to go to college for free, AND play a sport would feel the need to be paid as well.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
You said it yourself. Tier 1 coaches would be replaced by tier 2 or 3 coaches. I completely agree with you on that.
<< <i>Why would other sports suffer? >>
I think that is pretty self-explanatory. If you suddenly add several million dollars of expenses to an already failing college athletic system, there will be cuts.
<< <i>I think you'd see a shrinkage of the 125-odd BCS level teams shrink, that's for sure. And is that really such a bad thing? Wouldn't college football be better across the board if say the number of teams were cut in half? >>
No, I don't believe cutting half of the nations college football programs to fund the outrageous NCAA players salaries would make college athletics "better".
<< <i>As far as the other sports suffering, I don't think that would happen either. >>
If you honestly believe an athletic department will cut their football program before any other sport than you naive.
<< <i>Where's your proof that other sports would suffer? >>
If its so obvious you should have no problem coming up with a litany of examples.
To those who are opposed to players getting paid, what are you going to fall back on when they start getting compensated? Its going to happen sooner or later. I find it quite telling that not a single opponent has come up with a single credible and verifiable reason to be opposed to it. Sit there and rail against it all you want-but the fact remains that players are going to get paid within 5 years.
<< <i>I'd rather have athletes come who actually want to get an education first, and then play a sport as well. >>
I agree but those days have long left us. The multi million dollar coaches search far and wide for the elite talent. Time to let them benefit from their efforts.
<< <i>I'd rather have athletes come who actually want to get an education first, and then play a sport as well. >>
I agree but those days have long left us. The multi million dollar coaches search far and wide for the elite talent. Time to let them benefit from their efforts. >>
For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? Are those that are opposed so deadset on running these kids lives that you will give up all reason to deny them a fair wage in regards to the untold millions they bring in for their universities? Are you so determined on returning this country to the olden days of years past that you think these kids should be honored just to take the field for their school (while you ignore the millions that now flow in from advertisers and the NCAA?)
Look, we're in a different era now. Schools are making tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from collegiate sports. Money that wasn't there in the supposedly good ole days. Sitting there and gnashing your teeth about 'greedy' players while completely ignoring the money coaches, administrations, and the schools in general are making is beyond ignorant. College sports long ago stopped being a pure pursuit-it's a massive money-making machine that is only getting more profitable. It's long past time to do the right thing and start fairly compensating the most important cogs in that machine (and no, tuition and a room is NOT fair compensation).
Comments
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue.
<< <i>
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
Time to pay the professional (student) athletes.
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
Face it many leave the school just as dumb as when they arrived. Pay them for getting pounded into the turf, play after play.
<< <i>
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
Face it many leave the school just as dumb as when they arrived. Pay them for getting pounded into the turf, play after play. >>
but......but MGLICKER.......what if they.......are getting help from really nice, helpful people just because they are good at football? are those wages, too?
<< <i>
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
Face it many leave the school just as dumb as when they arrived. Pay them for getting pounded into the turf, play after play. >>
And, whose fault is it that they leave as dumb as when they arrived? The school?
Perhaps the school can accept these athletes to their institution, pay them, allow them to play football. Of course, after all of that the athlete is required to pay tuition, equipment fees, medical expenses, etc, etc
<< <i>And, whose fault is it that they leave as dumb as when they arrived? The school? >>
Not everyone is equipped to benefit from higher education.
Was sad and unfortunate when I lived near Detroit. Only the brightest students gained admission to the U of M. Exception of course was the oftentime illiterate football and basketball players. They really had little chance with the tough educational standards.
Michigan State at least, was more attuned to the average student and they could have fared better there.
<< <i>because, for a lot of guys, a 4 year free ride just isn't enough. >>
But it's not a 4 year free ride. They aren't allowed to get jobs, and their work on the field results in literally millions and millions of dollars for the university and the NCAA, of which they receive exactly nothing.
If it's so great, why doesn't the coach work for free? Why do the Nick Sabans of the world get millions annually in compensation? He gets the same 'free ride' these athletes do, yet the coaches and their staffs all get paid.
I have yet to see a single, solitary opponent to students getting their rightful pay offer a compelling reason why they shouldn't get compensated (and I'm sorry, but 'they get a scholarship! doesn't count).
a) cheat a system
b) leverage their talent
c) find an agent
d) eat for free
e) avoid prosecution for accusations and transgressions
f) e is like a
g) flex for cameras
h) ballroom dance
i) love lucy
<< <i>
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
I must have missed the part where they were forced into something.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>When negotiating for compensation, what tree should they be barking up? >>
unfortunately some people think colleges should keep all the countless millions and these athletes responsible for them should be forced to work and threaten their careers for free.
This combined with the likeness lawsuit is going to force the NCAA to finally pay these athletes and its long, long overdue. >>
I must have missed the part where they were forced into something. >>
Good point JHS5120. It is not so much a question of forcing the schools to pay the players, but allowing them to. Once they are allowed to bid for the talent, market rates will prevail.
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university.
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage?
<< <i>Good point JHS5120. It is not so much a question of forcing the schools to pay the players, but allowing them to. Once they are allowed to bid for the talent, market rates will prevail. >>
What is the market rate of a Heisman winner?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
yes, i did answer your question. i am opposed because they are already being PAID, not employed. please reread my prior response. then read this:
this Dorfman is no Kent
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>and i must have missed the part about their choice in careers. would that be aerospace engineer or brain surgeon?
seems to me the choice, and whatever goes along with it, has already been made.
perhaps we see it differently when we try to understand that the very best athletes are seeking exposure for their future in this chosen career, and the only way to get it is through the university. >>
Why are you opposed to paying players a fair wage? >>
they are already being PAID with an education which should be considered far more valuable than any type of athletic ability. as a society we can't seem to find fault with glorifying accomplished athletes, even if their primary obligation is to EARN an education. supposedly, that is the objective when attending school. maybe i'm missing something, but only because my standards are different from what we expect out of today's student/athlete.
remember, they call them "student/athlete", not "athlete/student". >>
You didn't answer my question. Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
yes, i did answer your question. i am opposed because they are already being PAID, not employed. please reread my prior response. then read this:
this Dorfman is no Kent >>
OK-- then why are you against these players being employed?
<< <i>OK-- then why are you against these players being employed? >>
not necessarily against it. but, are we ready to accept all other facets of employment which accompany this topic. let's go back to the issue of performance.
can players then be fired for underperforming? what would that do to their confidence while still trying to juggle a class schedule with frat parties?
or could they be docked a certain amount of pay if a contractual agreement states that they must perform up to a specific standard?
what about their personal lives and representation of the school? player commits a felony, does the U jump in and get them the hottest attorney available to save itself the embarrassment of playing the title game without its star player?
just asking.
<< <i>Why are you opposed to these players earning a fair wage? >>
They are receiving a fair wage. If they weren't then they wouldn't be playing... duh?
There's a huge difference between receiving a "fair" wage and simply getting more money. When these players first enter the league they are sat down and told EXACTLY what their salary will be. They are reminded that no one is forcing these young men and women to join their team and then they are given a pen. Now, how "fair" is it that they then start complaining about not receiving more money?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>OK-- then why are you against these players being employed? >>
not necessarily against it. but, are we ready to accept all other facets of employment which accompany this topic. let's go back to the issue of performance.
can players then be fired for underperforming? what would that do to their confidence while still trying to juggle a class schedule with frat parties?
or could they be docked a certain amount of pay if a contractual agreement states that they must perform up to a specific standard?
what about their personal lives and representation of the school? player commits a felony, does the U jump in and get them the hottest attorney available to save itself the embarrassment of playing the title game without its star player?
just asking.
I don't know why you're arguing as if these other facets you've mentioned are somehow necessary conditions of employment. Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? No, or at least not so far as I know. Ditto for athletes in every other major sport. And similar considerations apply to pay docking, etc.
The simple solution is to quit requiring anyone who plays a men's basketball or football from having to register as a student. They can sign a contract, get paid, play for as many years as they want, etc. For the life of me I can't see why a policy like this would be objectionable. Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet.
If, however, for some reason, we just HAVE to have these guys enrolled in a couple basket weaving classes in order to honor the purity of college athletics, then allow these kids to sign a binding contract with the college, the terms of which are wholly negotiable between the two parties of interest.
<< <i>Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? >>
cut? waived? traded?
i don't know why i'm arguing either. i don't really care.
i'm fond of the idea Dorfman presents in his article regarding a minor league system like they have in MLB.
essentially, the NFL is getting its farming done for free.
Is that right?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>More than 95% of division 1 schools would need to borrow money from students and tax payers to pay these salaries.
Is that right? >>
You've said this before, and I can't make sense of it. What do you mean, 'borrow'-- Selling bonds to the public? If so, then yes-- absolutely it makes sense. The University sells a bond, and someone buys it and gets paid back with interest. The U woudn't sell it if the capital they raise from the bond issue wasn't worth more to them than the NPV of the total payments, so what's not to like?
Beyond that, where is your source for this "borrowing" claim?
<< <i>
<< <i>Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? >>
cut? waived? traded?
i don't know why i'm arguing either. i don't really care.
i'm fond of the idea Dorfman presents in his article regarding a minor league system like they have in MLB.
essentially, the NFL is getting its farming done for free. >>
I think all MLB deals are guaranteed. As for the NFL, the one thing that IS guaranteed is the signing bonus. I'm sure most NCAA football players would be just fine with collecting a check with a lot of zeroes tacked on the end and then taking their chances with being cut if they under perform; and even if they wouldn't be, we should at least give them that choice. If they'd rather play for three hots, a cot, and free tuition then they would be more than welcome to strike that deal instead.
Edit to add: I think Dorfman-- like so many people who weigh in on this topic- is confusing the 'option' to pay players with the 'obligation' to pay players. I'm all for the former, but completely against the latter. As for the rest of his article, I think he's on the right track re: the ridiculous league entry requirements imposed by the major sports leagues. My solution is to completely abandon the draft system altogether, though his solution also has merits.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are MLB players 'fired for underperforming'? >>
cut? waived? traded? >>
They still receive their money if any of these things happen. MLB, like the NBA, has guaranteed contracts.
It seems to me the people clinging to the argument with college players not getting paid want to harken back to the 'good ole days' of years past. That somehow keeping up this 'tradition' of not paying players somehow makes the game more pure. Then they tune in to their pay TV service, watch every part of their college game of choice be sponsored, and be subjected to endless advertisments during the game. And then they want to voice their objection to the players getting their fair cut?
<< <i>essentially, the NFL is getting its farming done for free. >>
Meanwhile, colleges and the NCAA are raking in millions and millions of dollars at the same time, all while the employees have to work for no compensation.
<< <i>Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet. >>
i needed to digest this and then read it again to find the appropriate humor within.
the honest truth is that when i'm watching accomplished college athletes perform, i secretly wonder if they attend any classes at all. how else could they be so damn good at sports unless that's all they were doing?
this is an extreme and sarcastic example, but do you wonder how many people actually think this?
<< <i>Meanwhile, colleges and the NCAA are raking in millions and millions of dollars at the same time, all while the employees have to work for no compensation. >>
Who's raking in millions? 205 out of 228 division 1 athletic departments lose money...
Besides, these players are not employees. If they were than they would be entitled to wages. I am not an employee of my local club softball team, I'm simply a player
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>Does anyone watch a college football game and think "Damn, I'm SO DELIGHTED that our QB is taking Marketing 380 this semester!"? I guess it's possible, but I haven't met them yet. >>
i needed to digest this and then read it again to find the appropriate humor within.
the honest truth is that when i'm watching accomplished college athletes perform, i secretly wonder if they attend any classes at all. how else could they be so damn good at sports unless that's all they were doing?
this is an extreme and sarcastic example, but do you wonder how many people actually think this? >>
There must be people out there whose appreciation for college sports is tied directly to the fact that the players are at least peripherally involved in the school's academic side (or at least have been involved at some point, as evidenced by the acceptance of players who have already graduated), though I fail to see why anyone would see that as an indispensable facet of college sports. It certainly isn't a requirement in Mexico, where the largest University soccer teams (UNAM and UNAL, to name just two- there may be more) are rostered entirely by professionals, and those teams seem to be doing just fine.
NCAA basketball loses excellent talent after one year of eligibility. NCAA baseball has little left to offer after all the high school talent gets taken in the draft.
you could take away that cream-of-the-crop talent and deplete what makes college football so special to the people who support it. then, the crowds go away along with financial support from alumni and sponsors.
the whole pay-to-play argument flies out the window. and the remaining players can wear those little colorful Velcro strips for all anyone cares.
<< <i>More than 95% of division 1 schools would need to borrow money from students and tax payers to pay these salaries.
Is that right? >>
Only if they wished to pay for the best talent. I would think that a team of real students would fill out any roster.
If the college football players won their case and were able to get paid, then I could see
the major colleges signing players to 1 year contracts, unless they are an absolute beast coming out of high school, then
they may get 2 or more years paid salary.
80% of college athletes come into D-1 football programs as "marginal" athletes. The other 20% are top of the line
players who are most likely 5 Star recruits coming out of high school.
I could see a lot of these 80 percenters only getting 1 year contracts, getting cut after one year, and the major colleges
signing other players to fill their spots.
I could see many of these paid athletes losing their pay for play status after just one year, and they'd be saying
to themselves that they wish they had their 4 year scholarship back.
Under the NFL collective bargaining agreement, NFL FIRST ROUND draft picks can sign for 4 years only, with an optional 5th year.
Many NFL players who aren't first round sign for much fewer years, with many only signing 1 year deals.
This type of structure could kill college kids if they were not "FIRST ROUND" material and could not sign for 4 years.
to themselves that they wish they had their 4 year scholarship back."""
Capitalism has its drawbacks for sure. Some win, others lose. Time to quit pretending though that the academic institutions are somehow exempt.
It would force schools to prioritize their spending - would you rather have an elite coach like Saban making $7 million a year, or a second- or third-tier coaching making $3million and use that money for better players?
It's beyond time for these athletes to be paid for their performance on the field - just like their coaches do.
<< <i>they are already being PAID with an education >>
If they were actually getting paid, they'd be able to order a pizza with their earnings. Can't exactly do that with a scholarship, can you? Again, it goes back to the example mentioned of coaches - if the system is so great, why aren't the coaches "paid" in room/board/tuition?
Fact is, the players are all employees. They are required to sign one year contracts - that's right, scholarships are year-to-year so, yes, they can already get docked for non-performance, felonies and the like. They are told when to show up and where to be and what hours they will "work". They are not allowed to "work" for any other entity in the same field (i.e. they're all under non-compete clauses). They are not allowed to seek any form of compensation other than that provided by their employer, I mean school. If they wish to transfer their services to another employer, I mean school, even though they are only under one year contracts, they are required to sit out one full year before returning to their field.
If they were truly considered student-athletes, and not employees, by the schools, then there'd be no games anytime other than Friday nights and Saturdays.
And, as I always do in these conversations, let me once again remind everyone that not every Division I player has a full, or even partial, scholarship - yet the non-scholarship guys have to operate under the same restrictions regarding compensation.
Finally, if so many athletic departments are losing money, perhaps it's time to look at why. Could it be because they are overspending on facilities and coaches? Also, keep in mind that a lot of that is a paper loss. They are required to count the scholarships for the athletes as an expense - and actually do transfer money to the school's general fund, at full value, for each one. The reality is, though, the school isn't losing anything. The AD pays $45k to the general fund for the scholarship but it doesn't actually COST the school $45k for that athlete to attend classes, etc. It's all a bunch of accounting nonsense.
When I caught wind, I phoned my parents (who still live there) for the 411. Total shock not only from them, but the entire community. This kid basically had a key to the city during his HS years. An A-B student in the classroom and an absolute stud on the field -- his junior year he parlayed a 2,300+ yard, 36 TD season into an undefeated Class 5A championship and a #2 national ranking. His story was so compelling, in fact, that MTV rolled into town and conducted an intensive documentary project his senior year. A camera literally followed him around every second of his life for 3-4 months, a la The Real World. I'll never forget going back home and catching one of his games back in '11. During a timeout, three MTV production dudes sprinted onto the field with a ginormous boom mic in hand and hung it over the huddle. It was that surreal and that insane.
In other words, apex to nadir in a short span. As I think about this topic in its totality, I can't help but contemplate a couple of things. One, I'd hate to quantify the number of similar stories. Two, would a stipend have helped rewrite the script?
<< <i>I am tired of the 'X% of athletic departments lose money'. These are the entire departments, not the profitable ones like football and basketball. Just like it is now, there are the haves and have nots - paying athletes money wouldn't change that dynamic. If teams were allowed to pay for players, the backroom booster money would instead be legitimized and be accounted for.
It would force schools to prioritize their spending - would you rather have an elite coach like Saban making $7 million a year, or a second- or third-tier coaching making $3million and use that money for better players?
It's beyond time for these athletes to be paid for their performance on the field - just like their coaches do. >>
Do you really think coaches will take pay cuts for the players? When has this ever been the case?
In reality, Athletic Directors will cut unprofitable sports (ie. college baseball) to free up cash to sign stars. Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? Not only will competition go down in college football (higher paid coaches will flee to the NFL), but other sports will suffer.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i> (higher paid coaches will flee to the NFL), but other sports will suffer. >>
Unless the NFL expands to 60 teams, there are no other places for these high BMI loudmouths to go.
<< <i>
Do you really think coaches will take pay cuts for the players? When has this ever been the case? >>
Who was suggesting coaches would be taking pay cuts? I never said as much. I said that schools would have to weigh how much an elite coach is worth. In the new reality of paying college players, schools will have to make that determination. Schools with a budget of X will have to divvy up the pie - no longer will labor be free, they will have to weigh if paying for a coach like Saban is worth the extras of millions of dollars that could instead be going to players.
<< <i>In reality, Athletic Directors will cut unprofitable sports (ie. college baseball) to free up cash to sign stars. Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? Not only will competition go down in college football (higher paid coaches will flee to the NFL), but other sports will suffer. >>
Why would competition suffer? Why would other sports suffer? I think you'd see a shrinkage of the 125-odd BCS level teams shrink, that's for sure. And is that really such a bad thing? Wouldn't college football be better across the board if say the number of teams were cut in half? As far as the other sports suffering, I don't think that would happen either. If the number of schools suiting up football players shrinks (and it would), that money would go a hell of a lot further in other sports. Football seems like it would be (by far) the most expensive college sport (I might be wrong, but given the size of teams, the equipment, and travel expenses I don't think I am wrong).
Where's your proof that other sports would suffer? Where's your proof higher end coaches would flee to the NFL? College coaches rarely translate successfully to the NFL level.
<< <i> Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? >>
Just because someone demands it does not mean anyone else has to give in to those demands. Why not simply allow for negotiations and let the free market decide? If the college decides it is better off paying something less than $12 million, the scenario you describe will never happen. If the college believes it is better off paying that salary, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
<< <i>
<< <i> Could you imagine cutting the college baseball program at a university because Jay-Z is demanding a 3 year/$12 million salary for an 18 year old? >>
Just because someone demands it does not mean anyone else has to give in to those demands. Why not simply allow for negotiations and let the free market decide? If the college decides it is better off paying something less than $12 million, the scenario you describe will never happen. If the college believes it is better off paying that salary, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? >>
Solid and logical answer.
Folks have trouble deciding what they want schools to be. They are bastions of capitalism when the $3,000,000 coach is hired, benevolent purveyors of social service when they go crawling to the state for funding and rah rah win one for the Gipper institutions when a top tier athlete is expected to donate 4 years of performance.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>Why would competition suffer? >>
You said it yourself. Tier 1 coaches would be replaced by tier 2 or 3 coaches. I completely agree with you on that.
<< <i>Why would other sports suffer? >>
I think that is pretty self-explanatory. If you suddenly add several million dollars of expenses to an already failing college athletic system, there will be cuts.
<< <i>I think you'd see a shrinkage of the 125-odd BCS level teams shrink, that's for sure. And is that really such a bad thing? Wouldn't college football be better across the board if say the number of teams were cut in half? >>
No, I don't believe cutting half of the nations college football programs to fund the outrageous NCAA players salaries would make college athletics "better".
<< <i>As far as the other sports suffering, I don't think that would happen either. >>
If you honestly believe an athletic department will cut their football program before any other sport than you naive.
<< <i>Where's your proof that other sports would suffer? >>
Do you really need proof? Isn't it obvious?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
To those who are opposed to players getting paid, what are you going to fall back on when they start getting compensated? Its going to happen sooner or later. I find it quite telling that not a single opponent has come up with a single credible and verifiable reason to be opposed to it. Sit there and rail against it all you want-but the fact remains that players are going to get paid within 5 years.
<< <i>I'd rather have athletes come who actually want to get an education first, and then play a sport as well. >>
I agree but those days have long left us. The multi million dollar coaches search far and wide for the elite talent. Time to let them benefit from their efforts.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd rather have athletes come who actually want to get an education first, and then play a sport as well. >>
I agree but those days have long left us. The multi million dollar coaches search far and wide for the elite talent. Time to let them benefit from their efforts. >>
For the life of me I can't understand the resistance to paying kids in addition to giving them scholarships? Are those that are opposed so deadset on running these kids lives that you will give up all reason to deny them a fair wage in regards to the untold millions they bring in for their universities? Are you so determined on returning this country to the olden days of years past that you think these kids should be honored just to take the field for their school (while you ignore the millions that now flow in from advertisers and the NCAA?)
Look, we're in a different era now. Schools are making tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from collegiate sports. Money that wasn't there in the supposedly good ole days. Sitting there and gnashing your teeth about 'greedy' players while completely ignoring the money coaches, administrations, and the schools in general are making is beyond ignorant. College sports long ago stopped being a pure pursuit-it's a massive money-making machine that is only getting more profitable. It's long past time to do the right thing and start fairly compensating the most important cogs in that machine (and no, tuition and a room is NOT fair compensation).