Let's Chat About the Merits & Deficiencies of College Athletes' Amateur Status

[DQ12]

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.

[EMAWmeister]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[NDSU Lollypopkid]

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

[NDSU Lollypopkid]

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..

[michigancat]

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.

[Mixed-Nutz]

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. 

[michigancat]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Mixed-Nutz]

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.   

[star seed 7]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[HerrSonntag]

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?

[michigancat]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[Mixed-Nutz]

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.

[scottwildcat]

Pay for play will never work as long as title 9 is around.

[HerrSonntag]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Spracne]

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?

[Mixed-Nutz]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[michigancat]

Yeah, I'd hate to see the rich get richer, unlike the current level playing field we have today.

[HerrSonntag]

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!)

['taterblast]

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?