This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You could make the argument that allowing boosters to give kids money or whatever might actually help smaller schools and that kids would stay closer to home at the same time. Every school has a rich former alum. Maybe the don't do as much for their program because they know already it's a waste of time. But if you knew you help out a kid going to your school and it wouldn't be an infraction? Maybe.
Yeah, I don't either. I'm sure I've related the story here about having this same debate on another board and the poster who was aghast that an open market might let Northwestern or Harvard win the national championship. The bigger picture is, imo, that there are plenty of schools with plenty of money to wave at kids. Buying a championship year after year won't be easy, no matter how deep the pockets (hi, Chelsea fans!)
No, in return for their work, they receive compensation in the form or room and board plus tuition. In the past they've also received a modest stipend. This is not free. It's a trade of services.
For me just boosters. I don't see why we'd see an increase in the unsavory element, as I imagine that sort is mostly undeterred by the current rules.
The rules have no bearing on that stuff happening.
So whether payments are legal or illegal have no bearing? I agree illegal payments occur now, but if it were legal I'd have to think they would increase by a lot.
Gambling, organized crime and racketeering are federal crimes and prohibited by the states in various ways. I have no idea what this question is asking or what you hoped to obtain by asking it but it makes no sense. Can you clarify what you are asking?
Which makes them an economic commodity and not a student who also happens to be an athlete. The problem with this argument is it basically ends up being an argument that amateurism doesn't really exist and what instead exists is the NCAA infraction system set up solely to ensure the billion dollar busines sin place keeps churning.
They're not at all replaceable. If college football suddenly didn't have any players in it that were potential stars at the next level it would definitely take a hit, simply by virtue of the loss of revenue from people who watch at least in part to get a look at guys who will play in the NFL. And then on top of that there's the resulting decline in excitement/hopefulness of fans about incoming talent. And that's before we even get to subtle shifts in the quality of play and what that might do in the long term. Also I have no idea why you capped your hypo at ten instead of, say, 100, or for that matter 1000.
They work 60 hours or so during the season. 20 or so hours per week in the offseason. They have to travel and also maintain grades. They receive next to no cash and the cost of their compensation to the university is negligible. Meanwhile their coaches and adminstrators make 6 figures and the top level people make 7 figures.
And yet if they didn't want to do that, the business could find someone else in 5 minutes to take the deal instead with zero impact on the business. Doesn't that suggest maybe it's not a terrible deal?
It suggests they are nothing but throw away labor and/or a commodity. Something the NCAA will not call them.
No. They are getting a terrible deal. They beat the hell out of themselves with very little prospect of monetizing their efforts while also severely limiting their ability to get an education. The fact that they are replaceable emphasizes how bad of a deal they have. If they are lucky enough to get a scholarship in the first place it can be withdrawn pretty much at any time (like when a better prospect comes along) leaving many of them with nothing but chronic pain for the rest of their lives.
Let's say all of the P5 kids go on strike (sorry, boycott...cause they're not in a union), and there was no such thing as transfer rules so in order to fill those roughly 5000 roster spots, 5000 G5 kids climbed up. They'd be all over that opportunity of course.
You're using business analogies to gauge value, but you can't do that, because what you're talking about (a bunch of competing entities getting together and deciding collectively to limit what they'll pay for employees/elements of their final product) would be a clear-cut case of collusion in the business world. "The business" here is not some singular entity of "college football," it's the individual teams. And I'm fairly sure if their prize recruits decided not to play for them it would have a massive impact on their business.
And in couching any part of the conversation in terms of business you defeat the NCAA argument in its entirety. You cannot focus on money, business, labor, comeptition and the like and argue in support of the NCAA because the NCAA itself can't argue it. It fundamentally defeats their existence. I'm not covering my ears and hiding my eyes from the people that disagree with me here. But every single argument made so far against this idea is language that the NCAA itself specifically cannot and will not argue. And that is because they know the truth. There is no logical argument against it. There is nothing within their framework designed to promote protect and defense education. It is solely about money and nothing more. Well, power, but money is the measurement.
Believe me..most think that way. My daughters both played D-1 volleyball in college and I was able to have lunch and dinner many times with all the athletes. I got to know many of the football and BB players as well as other athletes. The majority of the football and BB players all thought they had a shot at being drafted and playing in the NFL or NBA..no matter if they were a bit player on the team. One BB player was the 7-8th man on the team and averaged 3-4 points a game in his career...he told me the next level better suited his skills and that there was no doubt he would be in the NBA or play in Europe..that was 2 years ago.
Not where I thought you were going with this question.
Why no way? If I want to hire the best pitcher on the Rutgers baseball team to be my "paralegal" and pay him $400,000 a year for that, pay all the appropriate taxes and so on........ I'm not seeing the problem.
If it's such a "terrible deal" why do they do it? Why not just go get a job to feed their starving family? Why not just go to college as a student (loans, grants, Army).
I'm not sure I follow your question.
You're kidding, right?
The top 100 high school players could boycott next year and never show up to play and 99% of fans wouldn't know the difference nor would they care.
Judging by what I am reading in this thread they may not be dumb but many of them clearly have not thought the issue through.
I am agreeing with you that there would be a lot of schools willing and able to pay. The revenue generated for the school and college town is crazy.
This, to me, is actually the most interesting question to discuss and there is some data already at hand. Mississippi State has been accused by its competitors of offering Cam Newton's daddy $300,000 to sign with the Bulldogs. Reggie Bush had to give back his Heisman because a booster gave his parents a house and jobs. I bet boosters, who increased their support of A&M by $300 million after Manziel's freshman year, would've ponied up seven figures to keep John F. Football from going pro when he did.
