goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: DQ12 on August 06, 2013, 08:11:49 PM
-
I think that it's odd that high profile football stars don't make any money off of their likeness. On the other hand, they knew that would be the case when they decided to become a college football player. I also think that if players are allowed to get pay for play that it could send the entire NCAA system out of whack. Because of this, I find myself having little sympathy for NCAA athletes. In my view, they made a decision to go to college (for free) on the condition that their extremely hard work benefits the university and in some cases, tremendously benefits the university (Klein/Manziel/Newton etc). At 18 years old, you're free to sign up and play the game and receive the benefits of being a college athlete, or you're free to do something else instead.
Poke holes in my arguments and discuss!
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
specifically, how would that scenario differ from the one we have now?
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
if the want to get paid go play cfl or arena league.
-
I disagree with the O'Bannon suit in the sense that I don't believe players should get paid every time they appear on a television camera, but it is an absolute travesty that things like the "Johnny Heisman" billboard are allowed to be plastered all over America while he doesn't see a dime of it.
-
I think that it's odd that high profile football stars don't make any money off of their likeness. On the other hand, they knew that would be the case when they decided to become a college football player. I also think that if players are allowed to get pay for play that it could send the entire NCAA system out of whack. Because of this, I find myself having little sympathy for NCAA athletes. In my view, they made a decision to go to college (for free) on the condition that their extremely hard work benefits the university and in some cases, tremendously benefits the university (Klein/Manziel/Newton etc). At 18 years old, you're free to sign up and play the game and receive the benefits of being a college athlete, or you're free to do something else instead.
Poke holes in my arguments and discuss!
Pretty well put. A lot of people look at how much universities are making due to big time college athletics and athletes are wondering where their share of that is.
They get a great deal for getting to play football at a high level, have the best coaching, and get a degree. It seems to me that this all really became an issue is when the universities started making money hand over fist.
-
it is an absolute travesty that things like the "Johnny Heisman" billboard are allowed to be plastered all over America while he doesn't see a dime of it.
What makes it a travesty and what solution do you propose?
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
specifically, how would that scenario differ from the one we have now?
at the very least it would favor teams with large fan bases or in major markets - just like pro sports. That would seriously not help my favorite school.
also, paying players would imply responsibility for head injuries imo
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
specifically, how would that scenario differ from the one we have now?
at the very least it would favor teams with large fan bases or in major markets - just like pro sports. That would seriously not help my favorite school.
also, paying players would imply responsibility for head injuries imo
Yeah I misread that. I thought he said "allowing NCAA to make money off players' likeness"
-
If I could have played for K-State I would have done so in a heartbeat. I don't think they should get paid, but I believe the coaches making crap tons of money feel guilty as hell. Give them a few grand to pay for rent and expenses.
-
eff the NCAA. Bilas exposed them tonight like the frauds they are. There should never be an instance where you search a name..and it comes up to with a page selling said names merchandise...and they dont see a single dime. Thats messed up. And now they pulled the search engine plug from their site because they were exposed. eff em
-
it is an absolute travesty that things like the "Johnny Heisman" billboard are allowed to be plastered all over America while he doesn't see a dime of it.
What makes it a travesty and what solution do you propose?
Because it's an obvious play on "Johnny Football", a nickname that is trademarked and belongs to the Manziel family under the JMAN2 corporation. It's not an action shot of him playing for Texas A&M, it's him posing and smiling for a camera. Not to mention that the Heisman Trust is getting paid for the use of the 'Heisman' moniker.
If Texas A&M wanted to use the Heisman Trophy as a recruiting tool, which is totally reasonable and fair, they should have put the trophy on a billboard, or maybe an iconic image from the season that was the property of a photographer, and not a student athlete.
The fact that JM will not see a penny from this is a rough ridin' joke.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamedayr.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fjohnny-manziel-2012-heisman-trophy-570x335.jpeg&hash=3bb148f21dbd5989d9f52909aedf4b2fa1a1d23d)
-
it is an absolute travesty that things like the "Johnny Heisman" billboard are allowed to be plastered all over America while he doesn't see a dime of it.
What makes it a travesty and what solution do you propose?
Because it's an obvious play on "Johnny Football", a nickname that is trademarked and belongs to the Manziel family under the JMAN2 corporation. It's not an action shot of him playing for Texas A&M, it's him posing and smiling for a camera. Not to mention that the Heisman Trust is getting paid for the use of the 'Heisman' moniker.
If Texas A&M wanted to use the Heisman Trophy as a recruiting tool, which is totally reasonable and fair, they should have put the trophy on a billboard, or maybe an iconic image from the season that was the property of a photographer, and not a student athlete.
The fact that JM will not see a penny from this is a rough ridin' joke.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamedayr.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fjohnny-manziel-2012-heisman-trophy-570x335.jpeg&hash=3bb148f21dbd5989d9f52909aedf4b2fa1a1d23d)
Completely agree. as much as I laugh at aggy like the next guy through this miserable time...when you look outside of the box, everybody who has a hand in the cookie jar makes money off these guys...except for the guy doing all of the work.
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
if the want to get paid go play cfl or arena league.
That is one of the worst rough ridin' arguments in this whole debate.
-
Bilas also brought up a great point...if every football player in the NCAA signed autographs for profit on a friday night...would the NCAA cancel the entire saturday?
-
Bilas also brought up a great point...if every football player in the NCAA signed autographs for profit on a friday night...would the NCAA cancel the entire saturday?
See, I do think that Manziel is guilty here if he signed A&M merchandise. If he signed a shitload of maroon "Johnny Football" shirts, and got paid for it, I think that would be completely fine.
-
Yeah but Meister he posed for the photo didn't he? He knew that A&M was going to use that image for promotional purposes, right? Just like Klein and Arthur did last year. Is that not part of the bargain? Further, is "getting your face on a billboard" (with no further compensation) not a goal for most h.s. recruits when they sign out of high school?
I missed the part of this where players' expectations weren't met when they didn't see a dime of money outside the scholarships.
Also, you didn't propose a solution that would resolve players being compensated (outside of scholarships) and also not send the whole system out of whack. FWIW, I know little about economics.
-
That is one of the worst rough ridin' arguments in this whole debate.
Explain why because i think hearing your explanation could make me switch sides.
-
Bilas also brought up a great point...if every football player in the NCAA signed autographs for profit on a friday night...would the NCAA cancel the entire saturday?
See, I do think that Manziel is guilty here if he signed A&M merchandise. If he signed a shitload of maroon "Johnny Football" shirts, and got paid for it, I think that would be completely fine.
Yea theres that fine line he has to walk too. Either way, A&M is irrelevant if it wasn't for JF so they should shut up and enjoy relevancy for once.
-
Completely agree. as much as I laugh at aggy like the next guy through this miserable time...when you look outside of the box, everybody who has a hand in the cookie jar makes money off these guys...except for the guy doing all of the work.
And if he wants money from that, outside the scholarships, then that makes the "guy doing all of the work" an idiot for entering into the agreement, right?
-
Yeah but Meister he posed for the photo didn't he? He knew that A&M was going to use that image for promotional purposes, right? Just like Klein and Arthur did last year. Is that not part of the bargain? Further, is "getting your face on a billboard" (with no further compensation) not a goal for most h.s. recruits when they sign out of high school?
I missed the part of this where players' expectations weren't met when they didn't see a dime of money outside the scholarships.
Also, you didn't propose a solution that would resolve players being compensated (outside of scholarships) and also not send the whole system out of whack. FWIW, I know little about economics.
So what happens if a walk on happens to win a heisman one year? He's paying his way, and the college saves X amount on tuition+ pocket whatever money streams in from televised games/merchandise/hype walk on brings? the system is just stupid
-
Why shouldn't the system be knocked out of whack, dlew? the current model makes no logical sense in any way.
-
Completely agree. as much as I laugh at aggy like the next guy through this miserable time...when you look outside of the box, everybody who has a hand in the cookie jar makes money off these guys...except for the guy doing all of the work.
And if he wants money from that, outside the scholarships, then that makes the "guy doing all of the work" an idiot for entering into the agreement, right?
Yes...which is why its dumb.
-
So what happens if a walk on happens to win a heisman one year? He's paying his way, and the college saves X amount on tuition+ pocket whatever money streams in from televised games/merchandise/hype walk on brings? the system is just stupid
I mean, for one, he'd probably earn himself a scholarship. But that doesn't get to the heart of what I'm talking about. The kid agreed to volunteer his time to play football. No one held a gun to his head and said "spend tons of time playing football for free or else..."
If a college kid wants to be compensated in a way that includes something more than a full ride, playing college football seems like an odd decision.
-
I'm in favor of the status quo because so many against it are way too preachy.
-
Why shouldn't the system be knocked out of whack, dlew? the current model makes no logical sense in any way.
It makes sense because it's hear already and causes 50k people to drive to east central kansas 7 to 8 times a year and have fun together.
If there are rational alternatives I'd be happy to hear them.
-
Completely agree. as much as I laugh at aggy like the next guy through this miserable time...when you look outside of the box, everybody who has a hand in the cookie jar makes money off these guys...except for the guy doing all of the work.
And if he wants money from that, outside the scholarships, then that makes the "guy doing all of the work" an idiot for entering into the agreement, right?
If he had a realistic alternative, yes. The CFL and the Arena League are not realistic alternatives. That's like telling an aspiring business executive to work minimum wage until he is 3 years removed from high school and apply for a CFO job.
-
I'm in favor of the status quo because so many against it are way too preachy.
Bilas being the first name mentioned throws up an immediate red flag.
-
So what happens if a walk on happens to win a heisman one year? He's paying his way, and the college saves X amount on tuition+ pocket whatever money streams in from televised games/merchandise/hype walk on brings? the system is just stupid
I mean, for one, he'd probably earn himself a scholarship. But that doesn't get to the heart of what I'm talking about. The kid agreed to volunteer his time to play football. No one held a gun to his head and said "spend tons of time playing football for free or else..."
If a college kid wants to be compensated in a way that includes something more than a full ride, playing college football seems like an odd decision.
A scholarship during the season? What if walk on goes pro after the season and receives zero tuition money...then benefits did he get besides not getting any money for selling himself
-
I'm in favor of the status quo because so many against it are way too preachy.
Bilas being the first name mentioned throws up an immediate red flag.
Wut? Bilas is a boss..
-
Why shouldn't the system be knocked out of whack, dlew? the current model makes no logical sense in any way.
It makes sense because it's hear already and causes 50k people to drive to east central kansas 7 to 8 times a year and have fun together.
If there are rational alternatives I'd be happy to hear them.
your rationale for it making sense makes no sense.
a rational alternative would be to allow players to be paid when 50,000 people pay $70 to see them perform. Start with a small salary cap and gradually ramp it up.
-
Greater than 50% of BCS level football payers do meet the academic standards to get in to the school they play. So for for the majority of D1 football players the free education they receive is far more beneficial then the money they would receive by a pay to play system.
-
Greater than 50% of BCS level football payers do meet the academic standards to get in to the school they play. So for for the majority of D1 football players the free education they receive is far more beneficial then the money they would receive by a pay to play system.
they could still get the free education and receive more.
-
Completely agree. as much as I laugh at aggy like the next guy through this miserable time...when you look outside of the box, everybody who has a hand in the cookie jar makes money off these guys...except for the guy doing all of the work.
And if he wants money from that, outside the scholarships, then that makes the "guy doing all of the work" an idiot for entering into the agreement, right?
If he had a realistic alternative, yes. The CFL and the Arena League are not realistic alternatives. That's like telling an aspiring business executive to work minimum wage until he is 3 years removed from high school and apply for a CFO job.
But he has realistic alternatives. He could decide to get a job like a lot of other people do after high school or he could go to college on his own dime or if he wants to play football now and make money off of it he could move to Canada.
Or he could go play college football, get a scholarship, have a much better shot at getting NFL consideration than he would in Canada (although the odds are still minuscule) and not get a dime for his likeness, for the privilege.
-
Greater than 50% of BCS level football payers do meet the academic standards to get in to the school they play. So for for the majority of D1 football players the free education they receive is far more beneficial then the money they would receive by a pay to play system.
they could still get the free education and receive more.
You would end up having to alter the the athletic budget of each university that would likely end up in cutting scholarships.
-
In curries email this week he outlined how much an out of state football scholarship costs the ad and with insurance and special weight training or something for 5 years, the total came out to just under 190k. There is also pell grants for at need students as well. Some sort of fund to help athletes travel home a few times too. That swayed my opinion about paying them a little. Sure I think they should have some spending money, but they are essentially getting 200k for their work.
As far as the likeness debate, my view of what's right and what's good for my school and the ncaa as a whole are very conflicted.
-
So what happens if a walk on happens to win a heisman one year? He's paying his way, and the college saves X amount on tuition+ pocket whatever money streams in from televised games/merchandise/hype walk on brings? the system is just stupid
I mean, for one, he'd probably earn himself a scholarship. But that doesn't get to the heart of what I'm talking about. The kid agreed to volunteer his time to play football. No one held a gun to his head and said "spend tons of time playing football for free or else..."
If a college kid wants to be compensated in a way that includes something more than a full ride, playing college football seems like an odd decision.
A scholarship during the season? What if walk on goes pro after the season and receives zero tuition money...then benefits did he get besides not getting any money for selling himself
Then I'd say that kid's investment in his future pro football career paid off in spades. It still ignores the heart of my argument, and I find the hypothetical far fetched from the beginning.
In sum, I don't think anyone is considering the droves of non-scholarship heisman winners turning pro immediately after.
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
-
Greater than 50% of BCS level football payers do meet the academic standards to get in to the school they play. So for for the majority of D1 football players the free education they receive is far more beneficial then the money they would receive by a pay to play system.
they could still get the free education and receive more.
You would end up having to alter the the athletic budget of each university that would likely end up in cutting scholarships.
not necessarily. But I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, either. It would certainly make recruiting and roster management more difficult and interesting.
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go an play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
Yep, the NCAA should partner with NBA, NFL, and MLB. Or maybe just turn over Division 1 basketball and football to the NBA and NFL and cut out a lot of overhead that could be used to pay players.
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
NFL would have to have a minor league system, due to the physicalness of the game. High school graduates are not ready for NFL football hell some kids need a couple of years to get their body right for college football. This leads me to the idea that college football > minor league football due to just fan interest and the value of an education.
-
Pay for play will never work as long as title 9 is around.
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
NFL would have to have a minor league system, due to the physicalness of the game. High school graduates are not ready for NFL football hell some kids need a couple of years to get their body right for college football. This leads me to the idea that college football > minor league football due to just fan interest and the value of an education.
My whole problem is that they are forced to work for free before they can work for money... its anti-competitive and unfair to the players.
If the regulation wasn't there, thered be no one forced to go straight to the NFL/NBA out of high school, but those who are able would not be forced to work for free for a shot at the pros.
-
Yep, the NCAA should partner with NBA, NFL, and MLB. Or maybe just turn over Division 1 basketball and football to the NBA and NFL and cut out a lot of overhead that could be used to pay players.
Now there are a couple captivating ideas. I'm not against the first practice - the NFL should probably be required to finance, at least in part, their minor league structure.
I think the "turn over" scenario could turnout poorly. I'm not sure there'd be the same money involved in minor league football (even if they marketed the hell out of it) that there is in college football.
-
I think it's fair to pay these athletes a little bit more, at least to cover the true cost of attendance. These kids should be able to pay for the occasional pizza or plane ticket home, plus a little folding money. My scholarship refund after tuition was more than these guys get in stipends, and I didn't really have to do anything for it. However, I can't really get around the problem of completely opening it up to the free market. We already have that, it's called professional sports. Then there are the problems with title ix. TO WIT, I don't really think it's fair that these guys have to do media and advertising for the university, yet they don't get compensated for it. A potential way to get the athletes a little more money whilst avoiding title ix would be to compensate athletes for media and advertising. The rates of compensation would be standardized to minimize the "rich get richer" effect. Coaches could award press conference appearances based on certain metrics in order to promote competition.
I don't think this next idea would work, but it would undermine the "but they already get a free ride" argument. What if a player had the choice to either be on scholarship, such as it is now, OR to walk on, pay his own way, and retain the rights to certain types of free market compensation?
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
NFL would have to have a minor league system, due to the physicalness of the game. High school graduates are not ready for NFL football hell some kids need a couple of years to get their body right for college football. This leads me to the idea that college football > minor league football due to just fan interest and the value of an education.
My whole problem is that they are forced to work for free before they can work for money... its anti-competitive and unfair to the players.
If the regulation wasn't there, thered be no one forced to go straight to the NFL/NBA out of high school, but those who are able would not be forced to work for free for a shot at the pros.
Most athletic budgets are not designed to make profits, they usually move most their money back into athletics. So it isn't like student-ahtletics are getting screwed as a whole. The argument can be made the the select superstars are tho. But college athletics aren't built on superstars but instead are built on tradition rich programs.
-
I think it's fair to pay these athletes a little bit more, at least to cover the true cost of attendance. These kids should be able to pay for the occasional pizza or plane ticket home, plus a little folding money. My scholarship refund after tuition was more than these guys get in stipends, and I didn't really have to do anything for it. However, I can't really get around the problem of completely opening it up to the free market. We already have that, it's called professional sports. Then there are the problems with title ix. TO WIT, I don't really think it's fair that these guys have to do media and advertising for the university, yet they don't get compensated for it. A potential way to get the athletes a little more money whilst avoiding title ix would be to compensate athletes for media and advertising. The rates of compensation would be standardized to minimize the "rich get richer" effect. Coaches could award press conference appearances based on certain metrics in order to promote competition.
[/quote]
I'd be fine with something like this. So long as it was standardized.
I don't think this next idea would work, but it would undermine the "but they already get a free ride" argument. What if a player had the choice to either be on scholarship, such as it is now, OR to walk on, pay his own way, and retain the rights to certain types of free market compensation?
So long as "certain types of free market compensation" didn't turn into money handshakes or Rhett Bomar type stuff, I'd have nothing against it.
-
Yeah, I'd hate to see the rich get richer, unlike the current level playing field we have today.
-
The only problem i have with the system, is the fact that professional organizations are basically able to use college sports as feeder leagues, and that persons have to go play college athletics for XX many years before they can go an make money on their labor.
If you're a BAMF, no one should ask for your high school diploma or a copy of your transcript before you can take the job.
Now, admittedly, these organizations aren't the NCAA, but its obviously college athletics behind these regulations. Cui bono? Does the NFL benefit from not getting talent early and training them, themselves? Does the NCAA benefit by having top level talent be forced to do a few years in the salt mines without pay?
NFL would have to have a minor league system, due to the physicalness of the game. High school graduates are not ready for NFL football hell some kids need a couple of years to get their body right for college football. This leads me to the idea that college football > minor league football due to just fan interest and the value of an education.
My whole problem is that they are forced to work for free before they can work for money... its anti-competitive and unfair to the players.
If the regulation wasn't there, thered be no one forced to go straight to the NFL/NBA out of high school, but those who are able would not be forced to work for free for a shot at the pros.
Most athletic budgets are not designed to make profits, they usually move most their money back into athletics. So it isn't like student-ahtletics are getting screwed as a whole. The argument can be made the the select superstars are tho. But college athletics aren't built on superstars but instead are built on tradition rich programs.
I agree, i think NCAA athletics could survive superstars skipping straight to the pros, and this would be a counter argument to any pay-for-play proposal (If you don't like playing as an amateur in the NCAA, go pro!)
-
bottom line is no one forces these kids to do anything. signing a letter of intent is their decision, and in that letter of intent they agree to the terms of being a student athlete in the NCAA. if johnny manziel went to a&m and was the worst player in history, never saw the field in 5 years, could the NCAA/A&M ask him to pay back everything he had been given because he provided no economic benefit for the university/NCAA?
-
bottom line is no one forces these kids to do anything. signing a letter of intent is their decision, and in that letter of intent they agree to the terms of being a student athlete in the NCAA. if johnny manziel went to a&m and was the worst player in history, never saw the field in 5 years, could the NCAA/A&M ask him to pay back everything he had been given because he provided no economic benefit for the university/NCAA?
Yes, they can revoke his scholly after every season.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
Yes. Very mean of Bill.
Yanking scholarships should have to be "for cause" and should have independent review.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
because of misconduct. that's not really a part of this discussion.
-
I don't think every NCAA athlete should be paid revenues from game tickets or TV revenue. You can easily argue that everyone tuning in/going to the games is doing so because of the institution. But the individual athletes that are being exploited are getting so unbelievably mumped.
-
If I could have played for K-State I would have done so in a heartbeat. I don't think they should get paid, but I believe the coaches making crap tons of money feel guilty as hell. Give them a few grand to pay for rent and expenses.
dude they get room and board paid plus all their schooling...plus lots of clothes from Nike/Adidas/etc...I don't want them to get paid because it'll turn out to highest bidder and bunch if whiny babies like the NFL.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
because of misconduct. that's not really a part of this discussion.
It's an example of the ridiculous imbalance if power and how it can be abused under the current system.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
because of misconduct. that's not really a part of this discussion.
It's an example of the ridiculous imbalance if power and how it can be abused under the current system.
what in the hell? how?
-
People arguing that players should just go to the CFL or whatever are right in the sense that players can "opt out" of the current system. But their position ignores the enormous, uncompetitive barriers put in place specifically by the pro leagues to control salaries. I don't know much about the history of the anti-trust suits against these professional leagues but the arrangements seem horribly one-sided and prevent players from entering and competing in a marketplace.
I think a lot of the problems with the NCAA that Bilas seems to have, would be criticisms better levied against the NBA's absurd 1 and done policy and the NFL's absurd 3 year rule. Baseball has its own problems (luxury tax, hard slotting of salaries in the draft, their international budget and the push for a world draft) and is getting worse in terms of uncompetitive moves by owners to stifle potential player earnings. But the H.S. OR 3 years of college with the teams responsible for funding and maintaining their own minor league systems is a much better model. The NBA could easily do this by expanding their D-League structure.
The NFL is a bit harder and NCAA football is much more entrenched and the money/infrastructure involved is much more likely to prevent a seamless move to the MLB model. But the NFL partnering with the BCS-AQ conferences seems like something to explore. Unfortunately, between the O'Bannon/NCAA lawsuit and the NFL's concussion lawsuit this may not be a good time to potentially put a bunch of assets on the books in some kind of merger.
-
People arguing that players should just go to the CFL or whatever are right in the sense that players can "opt out" of the current system. But their position ignores the enormous, uncompetitive barriers put in place specifically by the pro leagues to control salaries. I don't know much about the history of the anti-trust suits against these professional leagues but the arrangements seem horribly one-sided and prevent players from entering and competing in a marketplace.
I think a lot of the problems with the NCAA that Bilas seems to have, would be criticisms better levied against the NBA's absurd 1 and done policy and the NFL's absurd 3 year rule. Baseball has its own problems (luxury tax, hard slotting of salaries in the draft, their international budget and the push for a world draft) and is getting worse in terms of uncompetitive moves by owners to stifle potential player earnings. But the H.S. OR 3 years of college with the teams responsible for funding and maintaining their own minor league systems is a much better model. The NBA could easily do this by expanding their D-League structure.
The NFL is a bit harder and NCAA football is much more entrenched and the money/infrastructure involved is much more likely to prevent a seamless move to the MLB model. But the NFL partnering with the BCS-AQ conferences seems like something to explore. Unfortunately, between the O'Bannon/NCAA lawsuit and the NFL's concussion lawsuit this may not be a good time to potentially put a bunch of assets on the books in some kind of merger.
:thumbs:
I take no issue with players leaving early for the pros or bypassing the whole college process to enter the pros. I think it's messed up for a fan to have the mentality of "No you can't leave early because then everyone will leave early and that will dilute my college football viewing experience." Now having said that, I say let the kids take their shot in either an NFL minor league (which is unlikely to happen because the NFL wants to save bucks) or alternatively, let them go to the big boy league if that's what they want to do.
I think it's obvious why the NFL would not be in favor of this, for the reasons you mentioned above, but that, to me, seems like it's not the NCAA's problem. The NCAA, in and of itself, has a system set up that affords high school graduates to choose to go to college for free (with other benefits) in return for playing college football and promoting the college football team. That just does not seem like exploitation to me. When the spotlight is directed at the NFL, it does ("you're not old enough to choose to play because we can't really afford it").
Thoughts KK? Have I missed the mark?
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
Counter to that would be with out the current NCAA systems the market won't exist for these player to produce millions of dollars for their institutions in the first place.
-
the D league and minor league baseball are evidence of the apathy sports fans have for 2nd tier pro sports. The billions being made by BCS schools has more to do with the schools than the players.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
people keep throwing this "getting screwed" phrase around as if these guys didn't decide on their own accord to play college sports.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
Just to play devil's advocate... These guys have the opportunity to get hired in a millisecond for a 6 figure salary by wealthy alums of their respective universities. Todd Reesing is (or was? maybe not anymore) working for Dimensional Fund Advisors (The investment firm owned by KU alum and Naismith rules purchaser David Booth).
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
Counter to that would be with out the current NCAA systems the market won't exist for these player to produce millions of dollars for their institutions in the first place.
How so? The NCAA doesn't run college football. They just get hired to set the rules.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
people keep throwing this "getting screwed" phrase around as if these guys didn't decide on their own accord to play college sports.
Realistically, there is no other option. The path to the NFL, which the majority of these players believe they are on (I am aware that many aren't), runs through college athletics for the most part.
The most logical solution I have seen so far is for players in all sports to be compensated for their media participation. The compensation can be comission based. You don't destroy the system, and the players who are making money for the university get paid accordingly. This should pass Title IX because all athletes are paid the same percentage commission, shouldn't it?
-
the D league and minor league baseball are evidence of the apathy sports fans have for 2nd tier pro sports. The billions being made by BCS schools has more to do with the schools than the players.
A&M made a whole lot more money winning with Johnny Manziel then they made the year before when they were losing with Ryan Tannehill. You might remember that Tannehill was the eighth pick in the NFL draft, started 15 games last year for the Dolphins, and will make millions.
Does that have more to do with the school or more to do with having a player who is better suited to the college game?
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
people keep throwing this "getting screwed" phrase around as if these guys didn't decide on their own accord to play college sports.
They don't have a choice. They can't play in the NFL and the other options are not better.
You can throw out the CFL as an option, but CFL teams would kill to have the kind of money that BCS schools make from football. It's not close.
-
I think it's obvious why the NFL would not be in favor of this, for the reasons you mentioned above, but that, to me, seems like it's not the NCAA's problem. The NCAA, in and of itself, has a system set up that affords high school graduates to choose to go to college for free (with other benefits) in return for playing college football and promoting the college football team. That just does not seem like exploitation to me. When the spotlight is directed at the NFL, it does ("you're not old enough to choose to play because we can't really afford it").
If the players aren't being exploited, not much would change if the market were opened up, correct?
-
How much (if any?) does this have to do with the increased role/talent of freshmen/first year players? It was never a problem when the superstars had essentially exhausted their eligibility.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
Just to play devil's advocate... These guys have the opportunity to get hired in a millisecond for a 6 figure salary by wealthy alums of their respective universities. Todd Reesing is (or was? maybe not anymore) working for Dimensional Fund Advisors (The investment firm owned by KU alum and Naismith rules purchaser David Booth).
Most of the rich KU boosters end up in federal prison.
-
If the players aren't being exploited, not much would change if the market were opened up, correct?
In the post you quoted, I acknowledged that the players may be being exploited, but if they were, it seems like it's the NFL exploiting them in the ways KK brought up.
I'm all for the market being opened up in some capacity, but I don't think that's the NCAA's or colleges' role.
-
How much (if any?) does this have to do with the increased role/talent of freshmen/first year players? It was never a problem when the superstars had essentially exhausted their eligibility.
It has more to do with the size of athletic department and NCAA budgets.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
Just to play devil's advocate... These guys have the opportunity to get hired in a millisecond for a 6 figure salary by wealthy alums of their respective universities. Todd Reesing is (or was? maybe not anymore) working for Dimensional Fund Advisors (The investment firm owned by KU alum and Naismith rules purchaser David Booth).
Most of the rich KU boosters end up in federal prison.
:clac:
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
people keep throwing this "getting screwed" phrase around as if these guys didn't decide on their own accord to play college sports.
They don't have a choice.
The thing is, they do have a choice. No one is making them choose to pursue their wildly unlikely NFL dreams. Their toil is one they chose.
-
Talking about the pros misses the point. It's the guys like Tebow, Klein, Crouch, Huepel, Applewhite, and probably Manziel who make millions and millions for their schools but can't make it in the pros who are getting screwed.
people keep throwing this "getting screwed" phrase around as if these guys didn't decide on their own accord to play college sports.
They don't have a choice.
The thing is, they do have a choice. No one is making them choose to pursue their wildly unlikely NFL dreams. Their toil is one they chose.
You're right. I chose not to play. Maybe that's why I'm falling on the side that thinks they work too hard for what they get.
-
the D league and minor league baseball are evidence of the apathy sports fans have for 2nd tier pro sports. The billions being made by BCS schools has more to do with the schools than the players.
A&M made a whole lot more money winning with Johnny Manziel then they made the year before when they were losing with Ryan Tannehill. You might remember that Tannehill was the eighth pick in the NFL draft, started 15 games last year for the Dolphins, and will make millions.
Does that have more to do with the school or more to do with having a player who is better suited to the college game?
Id say the latter...but it helps to have a character like Manziel who plays entertaining....people know Tannehill more for his wifes clubfoot.
What still irritates me most about any of this...is how the NCAA had Johnny Manziel, Jadaveon Clowney, Tajh Boyd etc in the search engine linked up to sell merchandise of an unlicensed player....but then yanked it when they got caught with their pants down by a national pundit....pathetic. Im sure Klein would love to see a buck after his name was in the engines last year
-
Making a profit doesn't seem very christian, CK does not approve. :don'tcare:
-
they work too hard for what they get.
Of course they work too hard for what they get. But a lot of professions (teachers, nurses, firefighters) involve working too hard for the return. But people choose career paths knowing full well that the market is oversaturated but they choose that path because maybe they didn't have any other option or maybe they were tempted to chance it because if they succeed the return could be huge.
If we're going to call college football a "career path" with a straight face and start analyzing whether potential future pro athletes have "other choices," then we need to recognize that choosing that career path is a wildly reckless choice that has no guaranteed further return than a free college education and an absolute ton of work.
I really think that college football (and the money associated with it) only exists if schools are able to offer players equal monetary benefits. Otherwise, I think college football, the money and any immediate monetary benefits awarded to 18 year olds who are good at football cease to exist.
-
Right now the salary cap in college football is zero. This purportedly keeps the playing field level between schools.
So quantify the actual benefits a player gets, and allow schools to compensate on top of that with money, travel vouchers, etc. Then put a salary cap on the schools and let them manage recruiting/retaining players while staying under the cap.
And keep any other sort of compensation, like money for autographs, a violation.
:dunno:
-
Schools should be able to give objects but not money. It would be super entertaining to watch them try to one up each other with crazy gifts.
-
:dnr: this whole thread but I've posted my thoughts on the best way to fix this before and I'll post them again. Offer all scholarship players a big lump sum payment of $50K upon graduation, paid directly by the NCAA. It promotes the student part of student-athlete, it rewards players for their years of making bags of money for the NCAA and if the NCAA controls it and pays everyone the same amount certain schools won't get an unfair advantage under this system of paying the players.
-
Many of the scenarios put forth in this thread, if they were to occur will have entities of various political agendas, academic constituencies and axe grinders lined up down the hall to sit in front of Congress to tell them why the non profit status of BCS level schools should be revoked.
Not to detract from the individual player discussion, but this is why I think the big conference commish's are only going to fire shots across the bow of the NCAA. Because at the end of the day, they know, and the Pres's know that if there was a break away of BCS level schools from the NCAA. There would be an uprising for non profit revocation and/or a zealot like monitoring by women's groups of Title IX compliance by the break aways which in all probability would lead to a litany of lawsuits. Of course from a break away you'd see a movement towards playing players etc. etc. Thus, when you toss it all in a bowl in mix, the end of college athletics as we know it.
Despite how much I like college athletics, it really has become absurd on many levels, and there's been a trickle down to even smaller schools. Greedy athletic departments paying greedy coaches. Colleges and Universities jacking up tuition and fees at rates that far outpace inflation causing greedy athletic departments to have to pay money hungry schools millions upon millions in tuition and fees for their athletes. Which in turns drive greedy athletic departments to have to shake every last dollar out of their constituencies. Not to mention the facilities arms race which despite my interest in them has gotten absurd. This segues right into the division of the major conference school athletes from the regular student body. Oregon (for example) athletes/football players get to cocoon themselves in a facility that rivals in amenities the poshest corporate headquarter settings of the world's most succesful companies. Then leads into athletes on that level arguing that they deserve the leather bound coaches, 80 inch flat screen players lounges, juice bars, new dorms which are clearly athletic dorms disguised as high end student dorms et. al. because of all the time they put into it and the money they make the school. Which in turn leads us right back to the main point of this thread, rinse and repeat.
I didn't even mention the absurdity of the non-profit oversight body that makes billions of dollars, pays its senior staff fat salaries, operates a fleet of corporate jets and generally lives a corporate lifestyle rivaling senior management at many Fortune 150 companies.
No need to scratch your head about why there's academic entities that want to blow the whole thing up.
-
If the players aren't being exploited, not much would change if the market were opened up, correct?
In the post you quoted, I acknowledged that the players may be being exploited, but if they were, it seems like it's the NFL exploiting them in the ways KK brought up.
I'm all for the market being opened up in some capacity, but I don't think that's the NCAA's or colleges' role.
I think michigancat's point and the part you are missing is that the NCAA is colliding to close off the marketplace with the NFL to their mutual benefit and to the player's detriment.
The reason why the CFL is not equivalent is that it is not populated with a comparable pool of talent, thus the TV dollars will never approach that of college football. Which prevents it from threatening the NFL or college football in any way.
So you are right there could be a trailblazer that decides to opt out, but the institutional barriers to entry in to a fair marketplace that matches talent and teams are enormous and in the aggregate prevent college athletes from challenging the system because their individual earning potential would likely be harmed.
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
I'm just talking about from school to school. You think a degree from Duke or Stanford = a degree from Southern Miss?
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
I'm just talking about from school to school. You think a degree from Duke or Stanford = a degree from Southern Miss?
No, I don't. Your point is completely valid, and I agree with you. I just think the result of paying college athletes would be an even bigger clustereff than the one we currently have. Like you pointed out, not every degree is equal... not every college football program is equal. Not every player is equal. Johnny Manziel (if eligible) is worth way more than just about any player out there in terms of market value, so how would he be compensated in relation to the 4th string, redshirt freshman QB at UTEP? It's just a nightmare even pondering these sorts of things.
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
I'm just talking about from school to school. You think a degree from Duke or Stanford = a degree from Southern Miss?
No, I don't. Your point is completely valid, and I agree with you. I just think the result of paying college athletes would be an even bigger clustereff than the one we currently have. Like you pointed out, not every degree is equal... not every college football program is equal. Not every player is equal. Johnny Manziel (if eligible) is worth way more than just about any player out there in terms of market value, so how would he be compensated in relation to the 4th string, redshirt freshman QB at UTEP? It's just a nightmare even pondering these sorts of things.
Um, Manziel should be paid significantly more than the RS freshman QB at UTEP.
-
Bill took away Ell's scholarship for his last semester in one of the biggest dick moves in history.
:frown:
Sad that he would do that to the greatest QB this university has ever had
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
I'm just talking about from school to school. You think a degree from Duke or Stanford = a degree from Southern Miss?
No, I don't. Your point is completely valid, and I agree with you. I just think the result of paying college athletes would be an even bigger clustereff than the one we currently have. Like you pointed out, not every degree is equal... not every college football program is equal. Not every player is equal. Johnny Manziel (if eligible) is worth way more than just about any player out there in terms of market value, so how would he be compensated in relation to the 4th string, redshirt freshman QB at UTEP? It's just a nightmare even pondering these sorts of things.
Um, Manziel should be paid significantly more than the RS freshman QB at UTEP.
Yes, he should, but would he, and how much more would he be compensated? Like I said, clustereff.
-
Yes, he should, but would he, and how much more would he be compensated? Like I said, clustereff.
it isn't that hard, you could start by implementing salary caps and letting the teams decide who gets paid and how much (within their salary cap).
-
Yes, he should, but would he, and how much more would he be compensated? Like I said, clustereff.
it isn't that hard, you could start by implementing salary caps and letting the teams decide who gets paid and how much (within their salary cap).
that sounds rough ridin' awful. also where does the money come from? just football and basketball? is it a yearly contract? monthly?
-
Yes, he should, but would he, and how much more would he be compensated? Like I said, clustereff.
it isn't that hard, you could start by implementing salary caps and letting the teams decide who gets paid and how much (within their salary cap).
that sounds rough ridin' awful. also where does the money come from? just football and basketball? is it a yearly contract? monthly?
The money comes from all the rough ridin' money schools are making from TV and donations. It can apply to any sport (each sport will have their own salary cap). yearly contract.
-
I think the college sports should be for amateurs who just aren't good enough to play pro sports, therefore they don't get paid. The villain in my eyes is the NFL. I would really like congress to step in and pass a law that says if you meet the minimum age under federal law to work a job (16) and are good enough to perform that job, a company or corporate entity cannot set rules that discriminate based upon age.
-
Missy Franklin (go USA!) dominated the Olympics and couldn't accept any of the prize money for being the best in the world. :dunno:
-
Missy Franklin (go USA!) dominated the Olympics and couldn't accept any of the prize money for being the best in the world. :dunno:
which reminds me that players should be allowed to receive endorsement contracts.
-
Paying amateur athletes is a slippery slope, and it opens up a whole new can of worms in the world of sports. Would each college football player from each team make the same amount of money? If not, what process would you use to determine how much player x makes vs. how much player y makes? It's just a giant clustereff waiting to happen. I agree with dlew... these guys get free tuition, free room and board, free clothing, free food, scholarship stipends, etc, etc. I can see the argument from the athletes' point of view as well, because a lot of these players do generate millions of dollars for their athletic departments, but at the end of the day, the best players will be rewarded for their performance with huge salaries in the NFL, and others will receive a free education and a world of opportunities after college.
you're implying it already isn't a giant clusterfuck and that all college degrees should be valued equally
The first part, yes... the second part, no. A lot of athletes get very good job placement after school, and many of them have access to coaching positions and graduate assistant jobs that most students don't.
I'm just talking about from school to school. You think a degree from Duke or Stanford = a degree from Southern Miss?
The value of those degrees should factor in to a recruits decision on which school he wants to attend. If he chooses to attend Southern Miss for any number of reasons (likes the coach, facilities, campus, chance to win), then those those reasons have to outweigh the possibility of being a Duke graduate.
-
Everybody, in their brains, knows NCAA players should be paid just like any other free market industry. NCAA is a billion dollar empire built off of the work of mens football and basketball. Everything would be cool if the NCAA was a "non-for-profit" and these pawns were really "student athletes." This isn't reality. Logic dictates that these employees be paid.
But, in our hearts, we don't want to start paying players because we all know that this will be the beginning of the end of the college athletics era. Stipends are fine. I'm talking about free market, pay for play, supply and demand, salaries. Jay Bilas was on 610 advocating for just this scenario. Deregulate the NCAA and let the free market go to work. BMW said it's a slippery slope. It's not a slippery slope - it would be a monsoon induced avelanche. As soon as we start paying players, college athletics becomes semi-pro sports. semi-pro sports suck.
Logically these dudes should be paid money. But, from an emotional, nostalgic standpoint, college sports fans don't want to deregulate the NCAA and start paying these guys salaries.
-
i think allowing NCAA players being allowed to make money off their likeness while in school would open up a can of worms that would make NCAA sports a lot worse in the long run.
if the want to get paid go play cfl or arena league.
says the poorest university in the big 12
-
Everybody, in their brains, knows NCAA players should be paid just like any other free market industry. NCAA is a billion dollar empire built off of the work of mens football and basketball. Everything would be cool if the NCAA was a "non-for-profit" and these pawns were really "student athletes." This isn't reality. Logic dictates that these employees be paid.
But, in our hearts, we don't want to start paying players because we all know that this will be the beginning of the end of the college athletics era. Stipends are fine. I'm talking about free market, pay for play, supply and demand, salaries. Jay Bilas was on 610 advocating for just this scenario. Deregulate the NCAA and let the free market go to work. BMW said it's a slippery slope. It's not a slippery slope - it would be a monsoon induced avelanche. As soon as we start paying players, college athletics becomes semi-pro sports. semi-pro sports suck.
Logically these dudes should be paid money. But, from an emotional, nostalgic standpoint, college sports fans don't want to deregulate the NCAA and start paying these guys salaries.
The problem is that college athletics are the highest level of participation that these kids are allowed to participate in. College athletics doesn't need to change just because these kids are really too good to be unpaid. The professional sports leagues need to change so these kids can go get paid. College sports are supposed to be for kids who aren't good enough to play professionally.
-
Everybody, in their brains, knows NCAA players should be paid just like any other free market industry. NCAA is a billion dollar empire built off of the work of mens football and basketball. Everything would be cool if the NCAA was a "non-for-profit" and these pawns were really "student athletes." This isn't reality. Logic dictates that these employees be paid.
But, in our hearts, we don't want to start paying players because we all know that this will be the beginning of the end of the college athletics era. Stipends are fine. I'm talking about free market, pay for play, supply and demand, salaries. Jay Bilas was on 610 advocating for just this scenario. Deregulate the NCAA and let the free market go to work. BMW said it's a slippery slope. It's not a slippery slope - it would be a monsoon induced avelanche. As soon as we start paying players, college athletics becomes semi-pro sports. semi-pro sports suck.
Logically these dudes should be paid money. But, from an emotional, nostalgic standpoint, college sports fans don't want to deregulate the NCAA and start paying these guys salaries.
The problem is that college athletics are the highest level of participation that these kids are allowed to participate in. College athletics doesn't need to change just because these kids are really too good to be unpaid. The professional sports leagues need to change so these kids can go get paid. College sports are supposed to be for kids who aren't good enough to play professionally.
On-field performance and athletic performance is just one aspect of these athletes' employment, though. Bilas brought up a good point. When Manziel goes to alumni events, the University auctions him off at alumni tables for +$20K. Manziel isn't free to say, "nah, I'm gonna sit with my friends." Manziel sits where he's told. Collin Klein sat where he was told. It's the name of the game. Billions of dollars are made off of these kids.
But, again, start paying them salary commensurate with their worth, and college athletics are over.
-
I like Belvis' honesty about the situation. "Yeah, the kids are getting mumped over royally, but it just wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't eff them over."
It's so much better than the tired "THE EDUCATION IS THEIR PAY" bullshit.
-
The problem is that college athletics are the highest level of participation that these kids are allowed to participate in. College athletics doesn't need to change just because these kids are really too good to be unpaid. The professional sports leagues need to change so these kids can go get paid. College sports are supposed to be for kids who aren't good enough to play professionally.
Also, America loves today's college athletics, the industry that has become a billion dollar empire. Today's NCAA isn't merely a collection of amateurs "not good enough to play professionally." Today's NCAA isn't just the final level kids are allowed to participate. There's better baseball talent in the NCAA than there is in many independent leagues. There's better NCAA basketball talent on some teams than in the NBA D-League.
The NCAA is richer than it's ever been, the Execs and Coaches are richer than they've ever been, the Conferences are making more money than they ever had, and schools like K-State are building $100million clubs for millionaires to splash their money around for the very reason that the NCAA is littered with athletes who are good enough to play professionally.
People don't want to pay money to watch matchups between the MWC and Sunbelt. People want to see Arthur Brown tackle RGIII - not Alex Hrebek tackle whoever's behind center for KU.
-
Should Kip Daily have gotten paid a percentage of the 2012-13 sales of KSU #7 jerseys?
-
Also, America loves today's college athletics, the industry that has become a billion dollar empire. Today's NCAA isn't merely a collection of amateurs "not good enough to play professionally." Today's NCAA isn't just the final level kids are allowed to participate. There's better baseball talent in the NCAA than there is in many independent leagues. There's better NCAA basketball talent on some teams than in the NBA D-League.
The NCAA is richer than it's ever been, the Execs and Coaches are richer than they've ever been, the Conferences are making more money than they ever had, and schools like K-State are building $100million clubs for millionaires to splash their money around for the very reason that the NCAA is littered with athletes who are good enough to play professionally.
People don't want to pay money to watch matchups between the MWC and Sunbelt. People want to see Arthur Brown tackle RGIII - not Alex Hrebek tackle whoever's behind center for KU.
You are probably correct about the casual fan. I think most alumni will continue to watch their college play on tv, regardless of the overall level of play in college athletics. The Big 10 is turning their product into something worse than the MWC has been in recent history, and I'm sure tons of people will still watch them play.
-
Nothing better than watching Northwestern dominate Iowa 10-7 on ESPN, 11am kickoff
-
Nothing better than watching Northwestern dominate Iowa 10-7 on ESPN, 11am kickoff
It's awful, yet enough people tune in to somehow warrant the Big 10 getting the best tv contracts.