What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Should college athletes be paid? (1 Viewer)

Should college athletes be paid?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 58.6%
  • No

    Votes: 23 39.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    58
I think it's unfair to cast the supporters of the current system as stupid, since it's a system that's so ingrained in the culture that changing it doesn't seem feasible to the average fan. But it's also true that the smart guys don't argue for the current system simply because there are no good arguments to make. Oliver Luck had the good graces to debate Jay Bilas on the issue a while back and, while Luck is reportedly a very decent guy and obviously a very smart one, he got chewed up by Bilas, not because Bilas was smarter but because the arguments were all in his favor. Mark Emmert is actually a pretty smart guy, too, but he sounds like an idiot whenever he defends amateurism.

 
 I'm just saying anyone of us that takes a job has to play by certain rules of that company.  Same goes for these kids.  They take a scholarship and there are certain rules. 


Also stupid people that can't read.  But you still have opinions and that's okay.
Oh I can read. Your opinions like the one above, is stupid.  In your example as if this were a "job" there is only one "company" they can go to.  They can't go directly to the NBA or NFL. If you can't see what a screw job this is, I can't help you.

 
I think I'm going to bow out of the discussions at this point, but reading the last few posts has made me realize where at least one of the fundamental differences in opinions are.  I do not see playing college sports as a job, and it seems like many do see it that way.  I have know idea why I feel that way, but I do.  I suppose from my own playing days in high school, it didn't feel at all like work and I have projected those opinions onto the college level.  I turned down athletic scholarship offers at smaller, NAIA level schools, and it certainly didn't feel like I was turning down a job offer, but perhaps that is because I never had any delusions about making a career from it.  I can see where if you view it as employment, a lot of the pro-compensation arguments make sense.  From my perspective of it not being a job, they do not. 

I also don't have a problem with the solution some have proposed of players being able to sell their autographs, etc, but  I do have issues with the no-show jobs and booster gifts-- getting paid for doing nothing just doesn't seem right to me. :shrug:

But portraying D1 athletes as slaves or deprived or mistreated, indicating they get nothing from the NCAA in compensation for player, is laughable.  I think roadkill1292 - who seems to be on the complete opposite of this issue than me - summed it up very well..

Let's all agree going forward that the football and basketball players don't get nothing. And then let's all agree that what they receive is actually better than the average tuition-paying student. Because there's really no argument about any of that and we're wasting our time even bringing it up.

Instead, let's debate what they could be getting and whether being denied their true market value is fair and reasonable and necessary for college sports to have continued success. 
Unfortunately, I don't think I'm knowledgable enough about the financial systems in place at NCAA schools to know what is sustainable and in the best interests of student athletes across the board.  So I will hush, sit back and listen..

 
Oh I can read. Your opinions like the one above, is stupid.  In your example as if this were a "job" there is only one "company" they can go to.  They can't go directly to the NBA or NFL. If you can't see what a screw job this is, I can't help you.
It's the NCAA's problem and fault that the NBA and NFL have age limits?  And the NCAA's fault that there isn't a professional minor league system for those sports?  The NCAA doesn't seem to have a problem with MLB having a minor league system.

 
I think I'm going to bow out of the discussions at this point, but reading the last few posts has made me realize where at least one of the fundamental differences in opinions are.  I do not see playing college sports as a job, and it seems like many do see it that way.  I have know idea why I feel that way, but I do.  I suppose from my own playing days in high school, it didn't feel at all like work and I have projected those opinions onto the college level.  I turned down athletic scholarship offers at smaller, NAIA level schools, and it certainly didn't feel like I was turning down a job offer, but perhaps that is because I never had any delusions about making a career from it.  I can see where if you view it as employment, a lot of the pro-compensation arguments make sense.  From my perspective of it not being a job, they do not. 
I think the increase in revenues generated by these conferences in recent years has really changed (or should change) the argument. These programs aren't just generating enough money to fund a bunch of men's and women's Olympic sports teams anymore. They're building enormous stadiums and practice facilities and making just average coaches multi-millionaires. Schools in the B1G will be making $50MM annually in TV revenue alone. Then add in tickets, concessions, donations, merchandise, etc. This is an enormous business. Just making a playoff game earns these schools something like an extra $10 million. You really think you'd feel fairly treated with your free education and other perks if you're the starting QB of a championship team? Especially one who doesn't have the 1st round in the NFL draft in his future?

 
It's the NCAA's problem and fault that the NBA and NFL have age limits?  And the NCAA's fault that there isn't a professional minor league system for those sports?  The NCAA doesn't seem to have a problem with MLB having a minor league system.
They're all together on this. Why would the NCAA fight those age limits? The NCAA wants to keep their system in place, and the NBA and NFL want to continue to get by with the free minor league system that they don't need to spend a dime on. Why build out a minor league system when someone else is doing it for you?

I'm guessing that college baseball, for the most part, isn't much of a revenue sport is a big reason why the NCAA is cool with the MLB minors existing. Even so, aren't kids obligated to stay three years in college if they don't sign with an MLB team out of high school?

 
It's the NCAA's problem and fault that the NBA and NFL have age limits?  And the NCAA's fault that there isn't a professional minor league system for those sports?  The NCAA doesn't seem to have a problem with MLB having a minor league system.
Actually, yes. They requested them. 

How many NCAA baseball games are televised nationally under a MULTI BILLION dollar TV contract?

This really isn't that difficult.

 
Yes they should be paid and their college tuition provided to them at no cost should be taxed as income as well.  

 
I think the increase in revenues generated by these conferences in recent years has really changed (or should change) the argument. These programs aren't just generating enough money to fund a bunch of men's and women's Olympic sports teams anymore. They're building enormous stadiums and practice facilities and making just average coaches multi-millionaires. Schools in the B1G will be making $50MM annually in TV revenue alone. Then add in tickets, concessions, donations, merchandise, etc. This is an enormous business. Just making a playoff game earns these schools something like an extra $10 million. You really think you'd feel fairly treated with your free education and other perks if you're the starting QB of a championship team? Especially one who doesn't have the 1st round in the NFL draft in his future?
Exactly/ The only change I would make is that you don't get a free education.  You get a free OPPORTUNITY at an education.  The numbers show that most don't actually get that college degree.  Then there's a percent that have their tests taken for them or good grades given because of what they do on the field.  So the number is even lower than published.  But hey, at least you have a less than 1% chance of going pro!

 
They're all together on this. Why would the NCAA fight those age limits? The NCAA wants to keep their system in place, and the NBA and NFL want to continue to get by with the free minor league system that they don't need to spend a dime on. Why build out a minor league system when someone else is doing it for you?

I'm guessing that college baseball, for the most part, isn't much of a revenue sport is a big reason why the NCAA is cool with the MLB minors existing. Even so, aren't kids obligated to stay three years in college if they don't sign with an MLB team out of high school?
That's an MLB rule that players drafted out of HS can't be drafted again for 3 years and have to sign their contract by some date that deals with enrolling in college.  That's not an NCAA rule.

I agree the NCAA benefits but the lack of minor leagues still isn't their fault.  No one cares about minor league basketball or football.  People care about college basketball and college football primarily because they care about a school/team and support them.  If random All American at Top Ten Univ. didn't go to college and take advantage of everything given to them (not just the scholarship, free food, free housing, no taxes but the free advertising of their skills, free TV exposure, etc....) then no one would know or care who they were.  Again I'm not saying the NCAA and schools are honest and doing everything right.  I'm just trying to point out that all this wage fixing nonsense and slavery comparisons are over the top extreme on the other side.

 
Of course they should be paid, it's pure rich creamery butter to argue otherwise.  They should also be entitled to file workers' compensation claims for the lifetime of medical bills so many of them incur (too much to hope that the universities would actually willingly pony up to cover those bills on their own so it will fall to the states to protect them).

If it leads to a system where only 5-10 teams are truly competitive and the vast majority can't compete then bully for them.  It's not like the current system offers a ton of turnover at the top.  Those universities that can't compete should shutter their football programs and spend their time and money improving the quality of the education they offer.

 
Of course they should be paid, it's pure rich creamery butter to argue otherwise.  They should also be entitled to file workers' compensation claims for the lifetime of medical bills so many of them incur (too much to hope that the universities would actually willingly pony up to cover those bills on their own so it will fall to the states to protect them).

If it leads to a system where only 5-10 teams are truly competitive and the vast majority can't compete then bully for them.  It's not like the current system offers a ton of turnover at the top.  Those universities that can't compete should shutter their football programs and spend their time and money improving the quality of the education they offer.
That's a minor league football system.  It would fail miserably like every other professional football league besides the NFL that's ever been created.  

 
FYI interesting article by Patrick Hruby about the NCAA rules and how it impacts minorities disproportionately.  I listened to him on the Lebatard show and stated he doesn't think the NCAA or administrators are making rules because they are racists, but rather the impacts of these rules create racial injustice. Some points made in the article were already brought up by other posters, such as the education athletes receive are not equivalent to the education of a non student-athlete because of the focus on practice and games over classes.  

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/four-years-a-student-athlete-the-racial-injustice-of-big-time-college-sports

 
Before we enter the regularly scheduled competitive balance segment of our show, I'd like to acknowledge that this issue touches something visceral in people opposed to the free market concept. In a debate some years ago, Idiot Boxer, I think it was (and I apologize to him if it wasn't), one of the more erudite posters on this board, admitted that he "needed the 'fiction'" of the players being amateurs. He said that if he knew the players were receiving money from boosters or anyone else, it would diminish his enjoyment of college sports. It won't affect me in the least little bit but I understand that there is an emotional element at work here that divides us more than pure logic.

@Capella I know you're popping in here every so often so let's put your CFB expertise to work. Right now, how many college football teams have a legitimate shot at this year's Final Four?

 
sjslacker said:
FYI interesting article by Patrick Hruby about the NCAA rules and how it impacts minorities disproportionately.  I listened to him on the Lebatard show and stated he doesn't think the NCAA or administrators are making rules because they are racists, but rather the impacts of these rules create racial injustice. Some points made in the article were already brought up by other posters, such as the education athletes receive are not equivalent to the education of a non student-athlete because of the focus on practice and games over classes.  

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/four-years-a-student-athlete-the-racial-injustice-of-big-time-college-sports
Marking this for later reading.  Big fan of Hruby's work.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Before we enter the regularly scheduled competitive balance segment of our show, I'd like to acknowledge that this issue touches something visceral in people opposed to the free market concept. In a debate some years ago, Idiot Boxer, I think it was (and I apologize to him if it wasn't), one of the more erudite posters on this board, admitted that he "needed the 'fiction'" of the players being amateurs. He said that if he knew the players were receiving money from boosters or anyone else, it would diminish his enjoyment of college sports. It won't affect me in the least little bit but I understand that there is an emotional element at work here that divides us more than pure logic.

@Capella I know you're popping in here every so often so let's put your CFB expertise to work. Right now, how many college football teams have a legitimate shot at this year's Final Four?
Hmmm. 2 from the ACC. 3 from the Big Ten. 2-3 from the Big 12. 1-2 from the Pac depending on if Rosen from UCLA can make the leap. Probably 4 from the SEC. So 14 tops but that's stretching it. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
Before we enter the regularly scheduled competitive balance segment of our show, I'd like to acknowledge that this issue touches something visceral in people opposed to the free market concept. In a debate some years ago, Idiot Boxer, I think it was (and I apologize to him if it wasn't), one of the more erudite posters on this board, admitted that he "needed the 'fiction'" of the players being amateurs. He said that if he knew the players were receiving money from boosters or anyone else, it would diminish his enjoyment of college sports. It won't affect me in the least little bit but I understand that there is an emotional element at work here that divides us more than pure logic.
It can be difficult to be a fan after seeing some of the sausage production process.  I'm a big fan of a traditional college basketball power, and it's difficult to consider the players part of the general student population.  They live in a brand new "dorm" right next to the basketball facility at a construction cost of over $500K per occupant, with just enough non-athlete rooms to comply with NCAA rules about "jock dorms".  A disturbingly large percentage of their credit hours are online classes to accommodate the team's practice, training, and travel schedules.  For the classes that do meet in classrooms, a team staff member is at the door at the beginning of class to make sure the player showed up, and again at the end of class to make sure the player didn't leave early.  There's no penalty if the player spent the entire lecture in the back with headphones on studying game video on their tablet, but skipping class is a no-no.  There are a few players who at the moment have moved off campus to prepare for the NBA draft camps but are still "attending" class online so the program doesn't receive academic progress penalties.  It is common for players to take 6-9 credits in the fall semester, 6 credits in the spring semester, and 12-15 credits during summer school to meet full-time student classification rules.  And of course there are several hours during the week where players must meet with tutors assigned to them for each of their classes, provided at zero cost to the player. 

None of this makes me root for the team any less, but knowing this makes it difficult for me to consider them "real" students of the university.  They are ambassadors of the brand, but they don't interact much with non-athletes and for the most part aren't representative of the student body at large.  I can shut it down once the games start and the games themselves are amazing experiences for the students, alumni, and fans of the program in the stands and watching on TV.  But it's hard to think of the players as anything other than mercenaries.                     

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
That's a minor league football system.  It would fail miserably like every other professional football league besides the NFL that's ever been created.  
I disagree that would be the outcome but even if it was who cares?  Is supporting a corrupt, exploitative system that uses abuses and discards kids like a commodity honestly a better outcome than the failure of precious college football?

If you are going to oil the machinery of your billion dollar machine with the blood of the laborer then you should pay them.  This isn't that difficult.

 
There are far too many sides of this to argue any generalizations.  Some of the athletes are very bright and are able to get a degree in a major that actually has a future.  Some are very stupid who would have zero chance at going to college if not for playing a sport.  These players are not getting an "education".  They are going to classes a 2nd grader could pass just to stay eligible.  I remember the college I went to had something called "The U college", which was essentially classes for idiots so that they could get good enough grades to stay eligible.  None of the classes were even valid if working towards any of the legit majors at the school.  They were pretty much prerequisite types of classes.  I had no idea how it was even possible this could exist. 

Then obviously some of the players are better than others.  Then obviously some of the schools have much better perks than others, and so on and so forth.  There are thousands of unique scenarios for these kids. 

Some people argue "well that is just the way it is and the way it has always been".  That is never a good argument in any sort of debate.  Never.  Makes you look clueless. 

I am personally not a big fan of the players getting a salary.  Once this happens some schools will have to shut down some of their sports, or all of their sports all together.  Who knows what else will need to be cut from school budgets.  Remember, not every school is bringing in boatloads of cash from sports. 

I am a huge fan of the players simply being allowed to "work" using their name, popularity, notoriety, etc........

If the team/NCAA wants to put in rules that the player can't use the likeness of the specific team or whatever, fine, although it would be free publicity for the team/school.   Heck, Zeke Elliot could have had a commercial promoting some sort of product while also promoting Ohio State where he would get paid, it would bring attention to OSU football, and OSU would not have had to pay money for that time slot.  FREE advertisement for the school.   If a rule needs to be in place where the school needs to approve of that commercial before it airs, so be it.  But the players being able to make money on their simply makes too much sense.  I am shocked it is not allowed.

 
As it pertains to football, the system is one that has been created by both the NFL and NCAA.  It is what it is.  The NFL uses the NCAA as their farm system and the NCAA allows them to do so.  They aren't separate entities who just happen to be making boatloads off the situation of happenstance.  The rules (at each level) are the way they are for specific reasons that benefit both the NCAA and the NFL.  Knowing this, it's safe to address the NCAA and NFL together as one group.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As it pertains to football, the system is one that has been created by both the NFL and NCAA.  It is what it is.  The NFL uses the NCAA as their farm system and the NCAA allows them to do so.  They aren't separate entities who just happen to be making boatloads off the situation of happenstance.  The rules (at each level) are the way they are for specific reasons that benefit both the NCAA and the NFL.  Knowing this, it's safe to address the NCAA and NFL together as one group.
That's an interesting perspective but how are you relating it to the subject at hand?

 
As it pertains to football, the system is one that has been created by both the NFL and NCAA.  It is what it is.  The NFL uses the NCAA as their farm system and the NCAA allows them to do so.  They aren't separate entities who just happen to be making boatloads off the situation of happenstance.  The rules (at each level) are the way they are for specific reasons that benefit both the NCAA and the NFL.  Knowing this, it's safe to address the NCAA and NFL together as one group.
That's an interesting perspective but how are you relating it to the subject at hand?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have only skimmed the majority of this specific thread, but every time this subject comes up, the discussion always veers into the matter of "choice" when they are talking about employees vs student athletes etc.  This situation and the way the NCAA and NFL have set up their rules presents an illusion of choice IMO.  It's a little naive to believe that the two organizations are making their rules in vacuums not taking each other into account.  So, yes, when I have a gun to my head I still have a "choice" to do what the gunman is saying or not (technically) but it's not really a choice at all in a practical sense.

If this conversation hasn't gotten to that point, I apologize.  We're 5 pages in and I just assumed we'd been down that path already.

 
Hmmm. 2 from the ACC. 3 from the Big Ten. 2-3 from the Big 12. 1-2 from the Pac depending on if Rosen from UCLA can make the leap. Probably 4 from the SEC. So 14 tops but that's stretching it. 
Thanks, Cappy, that sounds reasonable to me. Now, how many of those 14 schools have significant booster financial supports? And a follow-up to that, how many schools not in that group of serious title contenders also have significant booster financial supports?

I'm trying to figure out (a) if the contention that only a handful of schools will be competitive if we start letting the athletes make money is any different from the current system and (b) just how many schools can afford to compete financially. It's an interesting question to ponder even if the ultimate answer won't change my thinking about ending amateurism.

 
In the interest of full disclosure, I have only skimmed the majority of this specific thread, but every time this subject comes up, the discussion always veers into the matter of "choice" when they are talking about employees vs student athletes etc.  This situation and the way the NCAA and NFL have set up their rules presents an illusion of choice IMO.  It's a little naive to believe that the two organizations are making their rules in vacuums not taking each other into account.  So, yes, when I have a gun to my head I still have a "choice" to do what the gunman is saying or not (technically) but it's not really a choice at all in a practical sense.

If this conversation hasn't gotten to that point, I apologize.  We're 5 pages in and I just assumed we'd been down that path already.
Well, it took us four pages to agree that athletes are already getting compensated.

 
In the interest of full disclosure, I have only skimmed the majority of this specific thread, but every time this subject comes up, the discussion always veers into the matter of "choice" when they are talking about employees vs student athletes etc.  This situation and the way the NCAA and NFL have set up their rules presents an illusion of choice IMO.  It's a little naive to believe that the two organizations are making their rules in vacuums not taking each other into account.  So, yes, when I have a gun to my head I still have a "choice" to do what the gunman is saying or not (technically) but it's not really a choice at all in a practical sense.

If this conversation hasn't gotten to that point, I apologize.  We're 5 pages in and I just assumed we'd been down that path already.
The NFL's interest in this is age and playing time and pretty much nothing else.  There is no effect on the NFL if a kid eats 7 servings of pasta at an awards ceremony unless it makes him too fat for the combine.  But Oklahoma football had to fine several players for having an extra helping of pasta at a graduation banquet to ensure that the extra food wasn't considered a full meal instead of a snack.  Because a full meal at a graduation banquet obviously makes the education of these students so impossible to maintain the very fabric of education in higher institutions in this country.

There is no effect on the NFL if an assistant coach accidentally butt dials a football player at the Univeristy of Oklahoma the day after that same coach received a permissible text (which is a phrase not used nearly enough in jokes) from that same player.  Of course, to ensure that this awful butt dialing incident that rivals the conspiracy of Watergate doesn't destroy the fabric of education in higher institutions in this country the school enforced a four week ban on any official from the school speaking to this kid and the kid was declared ineligible pending a hearing.  A hearing.  Because of a butt dial.  Mark Sanchez is lucky that he just had to suffere internet meme's for a few weeks.  Although I'm sure Roger Goodell would hold a million dollar investigation on a butt-fumble if he could.  I'm getting off topic.

Or how about a recruit staying in a hotel on an official meeting (you know to pick the college where she is going to enjoy her education primarly because everything else really isn't that important) being decalred ineligible because during the stay she used the hotel wifi and the school paid for it.  OMG!  A college student using the wifi paid for by the school!  The horror.  There is no way that any student in a school can possibly be expected to use the internet while in college.  Those laptops you see kids use in class?  They are fake.  Just propaganda by the big schools to make them look cool.  And of course, the NFL is very concerned with students using the internet because if they do that then they might get a twitter account.  And if they get a twitter account they might tweet.  And if they tweet well then the NFL will cease to exist and be in asheap of history along with the education system in this country.  If you give a moose a muffin and all that.

How about the University of Oregon being forced to self report a baseball team permissible dinner that included a night of mini golf and........ laser tag.  Yup, laser tag is too far.  MLB wants no part of that happening.  And the NFL can't have it either.  If baseball players get to play laser tag, then football players will want to as well.  And no one can ever study for a final if they played laser tag in the previous 18 months.  It's in the bible.

And I'm sure the NFL and the NBA and MLB, and for the heck of it the NHL, UEFA, Disney, AT&T, the Vatican and the Dalhi Lama were all just horrified when Geno Auriema called MoNe Davis to congratualte her on the little league world series.  So much so that the NCAA fined him for making that phone call.  Because obviously that girl will never be able to enjoy an education now that she has been on network and cable TV, in a national sporting event, gotten phone calls from Presidents, been on talk shows and is considered a hero to other little girls who want to play baseball.  All of that makes it impossible to get an education and what Geno did should bar his team from being able to compete fairly with the other women's college basketball teams...... wait.

The NFL was ready to get Congress involved when Mississippi was fined for having an extra table in a locker room.  The NFL hates tables.  You can put deflated footballs on them.

Or even better, the NFL is going to simply stop the draft because Mississippi players weren't charged by Barnes and Noble a late fee for returning their cap and gown from graduation on time and instead did it a day late.  That would surely destroy education in this country.

When South Carolina players were eating cookies with too much icing, the NFL went ballistic.  Too much icing adds .00005 seconds to your 40.  Can't do that.  

Using the NFL as an example for any reason in this process is ridiculous.  And it doesn't matter.  The argument about the stupidity of the rules of the NCAA have almost nothing to do with the NFL.  Yes, the NFL wants certain rules in place.  But not how much pasta a kid can eat.  I mean, c'mon.  The whole system is a joke.  None of this has anything to do with education.  Nothing.  Not a single shred of any of these policies has anything to do with education at all.  It has nothing to do with fairness to the other students at the univerity.  It doesn't even have anything to do with Title IX.  It's the NCAA putting place a system to ensure that they have the maximum amount of control over their money making commodities as long as possible without interference from any other source to maximimize their profits.  And god bless them for it.  That is what a business does.  But let's not even think about arguing for one second that it is anything more than that.  The NCAA was created to protect players from literally dying on the field.  They were created to ensure player safety.  Nothing more.  They have morphed into this ridiculous nonsensical power structure that measures icing on cookies and goes to war over butt dials.

They don't care about the kids at all.  They care about their ability to help the next TV deal and nothing more.  They don't care about competative balance, they care about the illusion of control.  They don't care about education, they care about money.  And that's fine.  But let's give up trying to justify their existence at this point becuase they can't even do it.  And still, to this day, in the past decade or more since this topic has been getting more and more play there is not a single logical or reasonble argument based in sound theory or policy that argue that a kid shouldn't be allowed to have an extra plate of pasta, a full time job outside of school, a family friend but his mother a house, or a mentor in the field that he or she wants to pursue after graduation take them out and pay for the meal and entertainment.  There just isn't.  

Yes they get a great deal with a free education.  Yes they get to use state of the art training facilities.  Yes they get enhanced medical care.  Yes they get to leave school with no debt if they are smart.  Yes they get access to things that other students would love to have for their chosen profession.  Yes they get all of that.  But when these kids start being punished because of a meal, a butt dial, a wifi bill, or the fact that a mentor in their field wants to take an interest in them and buys them a bagel at a diner we've lose the ability to even look at the NCAA as an institution worthy of anything more than scorn or ridicule.  

And I'm sure that Dr. Mark Emmert has never gotten a free ticket for anything.  Ever.  And pays for every single one of his meals, in full, without discount.  And he never butt dials.  He probably has a work study student who comes from a low income family who works full time while not in class at two or three jobs just to make ends meet for himself and his family answer his phones in the office and teach him how to use all this new fangled technology that the kids are talking about these days.  The $2.0 million salary doesn't hurt either.  Because it takes that much money to make sure he runs a system where a kid that gets three extra dollars in pasta must be punished by not allowing him to play collegiate sports until there is a full investigation. (I really hope every example above is from the onion.  But they probably aren't.)

 
In 2014 the NCAA reported that member institutions took in $1.09 billion in athletic related donations, or about $8 million per D1 school. Louisville received $20 million in booster contributions for its basketball program alone this past year, according to Patrick Hruby of Vice Sports, and the Washington Post reported that Oregon gets $73 million annually in booster money (Phil Knight?). I would be curious to see Eastern Michigan's numbers, where faculty have recently called for the school to drop down a division, something Idaho is reportedly already doing in 2018. EMU's president rejected the request.

I think the money is available at lots of schools.

 
I disagree that would be the outcome but even if it was who cares?  Is supporting a corrupt, exploitative system that uses abuses and discards kids like a commodity honestly a better outcome than the failure of precious college football?

If you are going to oil the machinery of your billion dollar machine with the blood of the laborer then you should pay them.  This isn't that difficult.
Who cares?  I'm guessing the hundreds of thousands of fans of college football schools that watch their team play every weekend every fall.  

You can disagree all you want but what makes college football successful is the fans that support these schools/teams.  Joe Smith might donate $10K year to Alabama for football tickets to watch Julio Jones or Derrick Henry or whoever play.  But he ain't donating $10K year to the Birmingham Bandits to watch them play in a minor league football system.  He just isn't.  

Another reason Alabama (and similar schools) are successful is they need to the Southern Miss's of the world to both beat up on for wins (That 7-5 SEC team would all of a sudden be 4-8 without the four non-conference free wins) to keep fans happy and they can make money by scheduling extra home games with these schools and getting fans to buy hotels, food, merchandise, etc... all the stuff that comes with a family spending an extra weekend in town.  Would college football still thrive if the P5 played only each other?  Probably but I doubt they would survive if only 15-20 schools were in their own league like a true minor league.

I think you're being overly dramatic with "uses abuses and discards kids like a commodity".  Again, are the "kids" maximizing everything they want or could get?  No.  Are they being treated poorly and unfair?  Highly debatable.  Is anyone forcing them to go to college or play football or be treated like a "commodity"?  Hell no.

And for the 100th time the players are being compensated.  With free housing, free food, free education all of it tax free too.  Is that enough?  Is that fair?  Sure that can be debated but let's stop acting like these guys are being forced to play here for free by the big bad NCAA.  That's just not accurate.

 
We should probably all agree that the athletes are getting compensated. I don't know why we didn't think to mention that before.

 
I think you're being overly dramatic with "uses abuses and discards kids like a commodity".  Again, are the "kids" maximizing everything they want or could get?  No.  Are they being treated poorly and unfair?  Highly debatable.  Is anyone forcing them to go to college or play football or be treated like a "commodity"?  Hell no.

And for the 100th time the players are being compensated.  With free housing, free food, free education all of it tax free too.  Is that enough?  Is that fair?  Sure that can be debated but let's stop acting like these guys are being forced to play here for free by the big bad NCAA.  That's just not accurate.
We are past that and we all agree they get something.  Why does it matter?

 
Another reason Alabama (and similar schools) are successful is they need to the Southern Miss's of the world to both beat up on for wins (That 7-5 SEC team would all of a sudden be 4-8 without the four non-conference free wins) to keep fans happy and they can make money by scheduling extra home games with these schools and getting fans to buy hotels, food, merchandise, etc... all the stuff that comes with a family spending an extra weekend in town.  Would college football still thrive if the P5 played only each other?  
This is some fascinatingly divergent reasoning that you've used before. On one hand, having only a few super competitive schools would ruin the sport. On the other hand, we need whipping boys like Southern Miss to make the powerful programs rich and powerful. 

I don't think either argument is convincing but the way you make them both without seeing the inherent contradiction is remarkable.

 
This is some fascinatingly divergent reasoning that you've used before. On one hand, having only a few super competitive schools would ruin the sport. On the other hand, we need whipping boys like Southern Miss to make the powerful programs rich and powerful. 

I don't think either argument is convincing but the way you make them both without seeing the inherent contradiction is remarkable.
Honestly, I don't think you have a clue how college football works nor do you understand fan bases of college football teams.  Carry on if you choose.

Don't you think if TV is paying millions to televize players (not schools), then someone could easily start a 10-20 team league and have millions of dollars to pay these players and they would attract these players over the schools that someone would do it?  Why hasn't someone done it yet?

 
Honestly, I don't think you have a clue how college football works nor do you understand fan bases of college football teams.  Carry on if you choose.

Don't you think if TV is paying millions to televize players (not schools), then someone could easily start a 10-20 team league and have millions of dollars to pay these players and they would attract these players over the schools that someone would do it?  Why hasn't someone done it yet?
I don't think you've established any of your premises yet. We're still working on your assertions that (1) an open market system will result in a small number of competitive schools and (2) that this is different (and worse) than the current system. So if you could stay a little more focused, maybe I could keep up better and then we could move on to fascinating declaration that Alabama pounding Southern Miss into pulp every year is good for college football players.

 
I don't think you've established any of your premises yet. We're still working on your assertions that (1) an open market system will result in a small number of competitive schools and (2) that this is different (and worse) than the current system. So if you could stay a little more focused, maybe I could keep up better and then we could move on to fascinating declaration that Alabama pounding Southern Miss into pulp every year is good for college football players.
:lmao:

I'll bow out of your temper tantrum about paying players.  Good luck.

 
Just jumping in here without reading much too, but I think there is an underestimation about 1) how many schools are competitive on the field, and 2) how many could afford to pay big money.

Mizzou for example, around 10th in the SEC in athletic revenue ($90M), has won 2 SEC Division titles in 3 years...and reportedly brings the city of Columbia roughly $250M/year in revenue.

 
Who cares?  I'm guessing the hundreds of thousands of fans of college football schools that watch their team play every weekend every fall.  Who cares?

You can disagree all you want but what makes college football successful is the fans that support these schools/teams.  Joe Smith might donate $10K year to Alabama for football tickets to watch Julio Jones or Derrick Henry or whoever play.  But he ain't donating $10K year to the Birmingham Bandits to watch them play in a minor league football system.  He just isn't.  Who cares?  It's not like that $10k is going to anything other than the sports program so it won't be missed if the program goes away.  All that donor money is why typically the highest paid "state employee" in any state is the head football coach of the team with the best program.

Another reason Alabama (and similar schools) are successful is they need to the Southern Miss's of the world to both beat up on for wins (That 7-5 SEC team would all of a sudden be 4-8 without the four non-conference free wins) to keep fans happy and they can make money by scheduling extra home games with these schools and getting fans to buy hotels, food, merchandise, etc... all the stuff that comes with a family spending an extra weekend in town.  Would college football still thrive if the P5 played only each other?  Probably but I doubt they would survive if only 15-20 schools were in their own league like a true minor league. You'll never know this until you try.  And if college football/basketball fails then, who cares?  I guarantee you the NFL/NBA will finally invest in legitimate developmental leagues and if the college sport goes away there will be plenty of talent to fill those leagues and plenty of fans who watch.

I think you're being overly dramatic with "uses abuses and discards kids like a commodity".  Again, are the "kids" maximizing everything they want or could get?  No.  Are they being treated poorly and unfair?  Highly debatable.  Is anyone forcing them to go to college or play football or be treated like a "commodity"?  Hell no. Not even close to debatable.  If a player is injured their scholarship can be pulled, if they have a chronic injury from their playing days the college has no obligation to facilitate their recovery beyond the term of their scholarship but since it can be pulled pretty much at will that pretty much means they are screwed from the moment they no longer provide value to the team. The college athlete (football and basketball in particular) are forced to put their athletics above and beyond all else.  With meetings, practices, travel and the like their schedules are booked even before you get to their class work.  They are effectively indentured servants.  Sure they could take full advantage of their educational opportunities, and many do, but the truth is that it is simply not realistic for them to excel both in the class room and still fulfill their obligations to their sports team, which they must do to maintain their scholarship.  And sure they aren't "forced" they are just sold on the notion that this is likely their best opportunity, even if that notion is oversold and underdelivered.

And for the 100th time the players are being compensated.  With free housing, free food, free education all of it tax free too.  Is that enough?  Is that fair?  Sure that can be debated but let's stop acting like these guys are being forced to play here for free by the big bad NCAA.  That's just not accurate.  Not all football and basketball players are on scholarship.  The ones that are get some food (and many are still going hungry).  They get the opportunity to get an education without the time to actually pursue it.  What the universities receive in return makes it not even remotely debatable.
Bottom line is that fans selfishly don't want to lose their precious college football and are willing to turn a blind eye to the horrible system that the NCAA has created for the players.  Just because people like something or are willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse doesn't make those things right.  I hope I don't have to provide historic examples of those situations.

 
Just jumping in here without reading much too, but I think there is an underestimation about 1) how many schools are competitive on the field, and 2) how many could afford to pay big money.

Mizzou for example, around 10th in the SEC in athletic revenue ($90M), has won 2 SEC Division titles in 3 years...and reportedly brings the city of Columbia roughly $250M/year in revenue.
Expand on this a little. We're at the point in the debate now where we're projecting how the competitiveness levels will change if boosters are allowed to pay athletes.

 
Honestly, I don't think you have a clue how college football works nor do you understand fan bases of college football teams.  Carry on if you choose.

Don't you think if TV is paying millions to televize players (not schools), then someone could easily start a 10-20 team league and have millions of dollars to pay these players and they would attract these players over the schools that someone would do it?  Why hasn't someone done it yet?
What does any of that have to do with education?  The NCAA couches their arguments in education (poorly).  These are competative balance arguments and have no place within the framework of what the NCAA relies on to keep their system in place.

 
I had no idea how precarious the college football structure was until I learned that Alabama going 8-4 might bring the whole thing down.

 
If they finish a degree within 6 years with a GPA in the top 75% of their peers then pay them.  Otherwise they can pound sand.  

 
Why?  That might be just as illogical as anything else said to date.
If you just put out cash offers for 5 star athletes, you would have a talent suck to the schools that have the resources to do it.  By putting a degree stipulation on it this could go to actually benefit those that will not go onto be a pro, where theoretically you wouldn't need the money.  Secondary effect is you could increase the graduation rate which in many sports is absolutely horrific.  

 
If you just put out cash offers for 5 star athletes, you would have a talent suck to the schools that have the resources to do it.  By putting a degree stipulation on it this could go to actually benefit those that will not go onto be a pro, where theoretically you wouldn't need the money.  Secondary effect is you could increase the graduation rate which in many sports is absolutely horrific.  
You are talking about the schools paying the kids some kind of salary.  I'm not.  I know some are, but they can't.  

Beyond that though, you are arguing that only some schools will get the best players - not some universities will get less enrollment of students whose degrees are important.  There is no argument as part of this that is defined by an educational need.  It's competative balance and money.  The NCAA argues that they are students.  No other student in the univeristy is required to only work a job off campus if they have a certain GPA or graduate by a certain time.  Why should the athlete be forced to do something other students don't have to do unless it has nothing to with education?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top