UCLA's Myles Jack enters the draft/calls out NCAA on his way out the door

[atoaz12]

Myles Jack 'had done enough' for UCLA Bruins, wants to be compensated (http://espn.go.com/losangeles/college-football/story/_/id/13837280/myles-jack-had-done-enough-ucla-bruins-wants-compensated)

Good for him!! Go get yours, Myles

The NCAA is so very broken. I hope we eventually see these kids get compensated in some form or fashion for what they bring to the school

*cue the 'their education is their compensation comments' haha

[asujbl]

Cool?

Same old story. Nothing new. 50% of people say pay them. 50% of people say don't. It'll never change because you'll never come up with an equitable system.

If you pay Myles Jack are you paying the backup RT the same amount? How are you going to decide? And if you are paying them all the same, which you'd have to, it won't be enough to change anything for a future NFL player. It'll be peanuts if they are really worried about getting hurt.

And that ignores paying any other sport. How many athletic departments operate in the black when you factor in all sports? The last study from 2014 said like 20 athletic departments, out of every single school, actually make any money after Football and Men's Basketball fund all the other sports.

It still cracks me up that everyone is "The NCAA sucks" as if this isn't an NFL rule that he couldn't have already gone Pro. The NFL is in charge of their feeder system. The NFL could have let Myles Jack in last year. Not the NCAA.

NCAA is just easier to pick on.

Which is way off topic and another thread I suppose.

Either way I don't blame Jack. I'm fine with whatever he chooses.

But piling on the NCAA is beating a dead horse that isn't really their fault

[chris_ac]

No, their education is more important than the sport they play. Tooling college to fit the athletes where sports is a higher priority than a college degree is the fastest way to make a numerous amount of stupid civilians in society. Too many millennials are uneducated as it is with commonplace business degrees and the misguided liberal arts majors that cry and come home to their parents because they wonder why their university degree did not net them a job. They need to aspire to be better than their peers and educates themselves in science, math, engineering, computers, etc.

Athletes are not above everyone else unlike the mentality shown by Jack there. My cousin plays golf for Kansas and they were told from the get-go that they are attending to play that sport and get an "education" along the way. I put that in quotes due to the university's ill-defined use of education which is whatever fits into their sporting schedule. To pay college athletes anything is a Pandora box that no campus budget or fiscal policy of any state can handle. Determining basketball & football players are the only ones worthy of funds due to tournaments/bowls is a fat way of telling everyone else on campus from the other sports teams to the academic scholarships that you pay your own way and your reward is self accomplishment but playing one of 2 sports is rewarding in dollars and cents. See how far that argument goes with fellow students.

[Ray27Ray52]

Education is their compensation because well..you know... education IS their compensation.

The day college athletes start getting paid to play as a student athlete is the day I stop watching all college sports.

[SethMurphy]

As a former non scholarship small sport (swimming) college athlete I hate all the pay the football players talk. Either you pay all or you pay none. As a swimmer we actually put more practice time in during our season, we traveled just as much as football, missed just as much class time. But all we are told is your education is the reward. I'm tired of pumping up the football players as more important than the rest of the student body. It's ridiculous

[codered]

Just let them earn their own money without compromising their eligibility. Everyone wins. NCAA doesn't have to pay anyone and kids don't lose their scholarships for making a few extra bucks off their name. If a booster wants to pay them a little something to attend their old school......fine, money from autographs and appearances....fine, if they get a swanky job because they got to a big school....that's fine too

[asujbl]

Just let them earn their own money without compromising their eligibility. Everyone wins. NCAA doesn't have to pay anyone and kids don't lose their scholarships for making a few extra bucks off their name. If a booster wants to pay them a little something to attend their old school......fine, money from autographs and appearances....fine, if they get a swanky job because they got to a big school....that's fine too

That would never work - as I mention below - there are 5-8 teams that could clearly "outpay" every other team. What stops an Ohio State booster from paying a kid $250,000 for an "autograph" session when Team B can only afford $25,000? You can tell me there should be a limit but then you're bringing the NCAA back into it.

Let's say you pay the players - hell lets say you pay everyone (whether that means every Football player or every athlete in general) the same thing - is Myles Jack going to stay at UCLA for another year if you're giving him $10,000 over the course of a year when he knows the millions on the other side? It helps him pay his rent - that's great for a backup RT - it's not going to make Myles Jack do a 180 and stay at UCLA

You're telling me the Clowney, and now Fournette, conversations don't happen if you're paying them a stipend each month? Those dollars don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things to a potential 1st round pick. It'd just be extra dollars to waste on frivolous items.

So then you go down the road of paying players based on performance? What they generate for the school? What jerseys sell?

So what's stopping my school, Ohio State, from paying a HS kid $150K to come to Columbus (since they have a Top 5 operating budget) when another school can only offer $50K? If we're paying based on performance when is the performance judged? High School? When your jersey sells? When you're on a magazine? Who at Nike gets to decide that Braxton Miller is worth more then Aldophous Washington because no one is going to buy a DT's jersey? Does Cardale get a bonus for the NCG? or does JT for the Big-10 POY award?

So you tell me the "schools" wouldn't do that... fine.

What's then to stop a donor from contributing a $150K to the University but only with a wink wink agreement of where it goes? How are you going to police that? People already put their endowments to the University for specific items (art, healthcare, etc...) athletics would easily turn into the same thing.

I get the paying players argument. I really do. I feel bad for some of the guys and the money they generate.

That being said there is absolutely no logical way, none, to pay players and make it fair.

Either players on the same team are going to be pissed off because they can't negotiate contracts (Braxton vs. Cardale vs. JT debate - but just with money). Players for other sports are going to be pissed off. Universities that have the money are going to get all the players (even more then they do now)

There just isn't enough money you can give a 1st round pick in Football or Basketball that will really make a difference. They either want to be in College or they are focused on the Pros... and if they get injured that focus might take them out of college (like what we are discussing now)

Paying Myles Jack a "salary" isn't going to change what happened. That salary would never be enough money.

[atoaz12]

Just let them earn their own money without compromising their eligibility. Everyone wins. NCAA doesn't have to pay anyone and kids don't lose their scholarships for making a few extra bucks off their name. If a booster wants to pay them a little something to attend their old school......fine, money from autographs and appearances....fine, if they get a swanky job because they got to a big school....that's fine too

Absolutely.

You should be able to make money off of your ability & likeness relevant to how that ability and likeness generates revenue.

Athletes generate money and interest for the university and the educational benefit they receive is not always equal to what they bring in. Yet they have no bargaining power to increase that compensation.

The genius math student or music major can go out and pursue money and opportunities while in school, but not the athlete? Not fair

Cool?

Same old story. Nothing new. 50% of people say pay them. 50% of people say don't. It'll never change because you'll never come up with an equitable system.

If you pay Myles Jack are you paying the backup RT the same amount? How are you going to decide? And if you are paying them all the same, which you'd have to, it won't be enough to change anything for a future NFL player. It'll be peanuts if they are really worried about getting hurt.

And that ignores paying any other sport. How many athletic departments operate in the black when you factor in all sports? The last study from 2014 said like 20 athletic departments, out of every single school, actually make any money after Football and Men's Basketball fund all the other sports.

It still cracks me up that everyone is "The NCAA sucks" as if this isn't an NFL rule that he couldn't have already gone Pro. The NFL is in charge of their feeder system. The NFL could have let Myles Jack in last year. Not the NCAA.

NCAA is just easier to pick on.

Which is way off topic and another thread I suppose.

Either way I don't blame Jack. I'm fine with whatever he chooses.

But piling on the NCAA is beating a dead horse that isn't really their fault

I've worked for a major university and directly with the NCAA. It's not pretty.

Plus, I'm not piling on the NCAA only. Their rules system is as indecipherable and 'flip a coin' as Roger Goodell's punishment.

The schools and the presidents are just as much at fault.

I'm also pretty sure that the NCAA and the NFL have a handshake deal that ensures that rule is in place for the NCAA product to stay strong.
Plus, so few guys would be ready to make that jump earlier than junior year that it's a non-point.

The real issue is not allowing a person to make money.

No, their education is more important than the sport they play. Tooling college to fit the athletes where sports is a higher priority than a college degree is the fastest way to make a numerous amount of stupid civilians in society. Too many millennials are uneducated as it is with commonplace business degrees and the misguided liberal arts majors that cry and come home to their parents because they wonder why their university degree did not net them a job. They need to aspire to be better than their peers and educates themselves in science, math, engineering, computers, etc.

Athletes are not above everyone else unlike the mentality shown by Jack there. My cousin plays golf for Kansas and they were told from the get-go that they are attending to play that sport and get an "education" along the way. I put that in quotes due to the university's ill-defined use of education which is whatever fits into their sporting schedule. To pay college athletes anything is a Pandora box that no campus budget or fiscal policy of any state can handle. Determining basketball & football players are the only ones worthy of funds due to tournaments/bowls is a fat way of telling everyone else on campus from the other sports teams to the academic scholarships that you pay your own way and your reward is self accomplishment but playing one of 2 sports is rewarding in dollars and cents. See how far that argument goes with fellow students.

It's no different than the business world.

You're paid for what your skills are.
A doctor makes more than a construction worker. Is the construction worker pissed? Maybe, but that's life

In the same sense, the quarterback brings more to the table than the doubles tennis player.
Just how it is

No participation trophies at this point

And once again, I'm not saying that everyone gets paid. They should have the OPPORTUNITY to be paid

Education is their compensation because well..you know... education IS their compensation.

The day college athletes start getting paid to play as a student athlete is the day I stop watching all college sports.

For some athletes, absolutely

But for others, the compensation doesn't fit what they're bringing to the table yet they aren't able to negotiate or pursue more.

That's simply not fair

As a former non scholarship small sport (swimming) college athlete I hate all the pay the football players talk. Either you pay all or you pay none. As a swimmer we actually put more practice time in during our season, we traveled just as much as football, missed just as much class time. But all we are told is your education is the reward. I'm tired of pumping up the football players as more important than the rest of the student body. It's ridiculous

Doesn't matter. Swimming doesn't bring in money like football or basketball. A scholarship is more than fair compensation.
Sounds blunt, but it's reality

That would never work - as I mention below - there are 5-8 teams that could clearly "outpay" every other team. What stops an Ohio State booster from paying a kid $250,000 for an "autograph" session when Team B can only afford $25,000? You can tell me there should be a limit but then you're bringing the NCAA back into it.

Let's say you pay the players - hell lets say you pay everyone (whether that means every Football player or every athlete in general) the same thing - is Myles Jack going to stay at UCLA for another year if you're giving him $10,000 over the course of a year when he knows the millions on the other side? It helps him pay his rent - that's great for a backup RT - it's not going to make Myles Jack do a 180 and stay at UCLA

You're telling me the Clowney, and now Fournette, conversations don't happen if you're paying them a stipend each month? Those dollars don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things to a potential 1st round pick. It'd just be extra dollars to waste on frivolous items.

So then you go down the road of paying players based on performance? What they generate for the school? What jerseys sell?

So what's stopping my school, Ohio State, from paying a HS kid $150K to come to Columbus (since they have a Top 5 operating budget) when another school can only offer $50K? If we're paying based on performance when is the performance judged? High School? When your jersey sells? When you're on a magazine? Who at Nike gets to decide that Braxton Miller is worth more then Aldophous Washington because no one is going to buy a DT's jersey? Does Cardale get a bonus for the NCG? or does JT for the Big-10 POY award?

So you tell me the "schools" wouldn't do that... fine.

What's then to stop a donor from contributing a $150K to the University but only with a wink wink agreement of where it goes? How are you going to police that? People already put their endowments to the University for specific items (art, healthcare, etc...) athletics would easily turn into the same thing.

I get the paying players argument. I really do. I feel bad for some of the guys and the money they generate.

That being said there is absolutely no logical way, none, to pay players and make it fair.

Either players on the same team are going to be pissed off because they can't negotiate contracts (Braxton vs. Cardale vs. JT debate - but just with money). Players for other sports are going to be pissed off. Universities that have the money are going to get all the players (even more then they do now)

There just isn't enough money you can give a 1st round pick in Football or Basketball that will really make a difference. They either want to be in College or they are focused on the Pros... and if they get injured that focus might take them out of college (like what we are discussing now)

Paying Myles Jack a "salary" isn't going to change what happened. That salary would never be enough money.

There's nothing stopping any booster from doing that.

Would it create a separation of power? Maybe

But there are only so many '$150,000 players' to go around. The top players go to the top universities anyway. What's the difference?

And how many 5 stars really turn out to be super mega stars? If they don't play up to expectations, bet the money stops coming in.

Like in the business world. You don't perform, you are passed over for promotions and potentially let go

Nick Chubb was a 4 star (UGA fan reference)

A booster may have stuck $10,000 in his pocket. But now that he's a stud, he'd probably be doing pretty well for himself. As he should be!

[asujbl]

Maybe?

There would be like 10 teams left. The others would not be able to afford to compete. Teams would just "buy" all the players with $100k autograph sessions. A half dozen teams can afford that.

Maybe is the understatement of the century

[atoaz12]

Maybe?

There would be like 10 teams left. The others would not be able to afford to compete. Teams would just "buy" all the players with $100k autograph sessions. A half dozen teams can afford that.

Maybe is the understatement of the century

You're making a gigantic assumption that there are THAT many boosters out there willing to pay that kind of money and THAT many kids each year worth that kind of payday

It's all demand. QB and running backs and once every 5-6 year talents like Clowney or Nkemdiche may garner that.

But even if they do, who cares? Practice squad NFL guys get that
I'd argue Boykin at TCU means more to the university than a practice squad guy to his franchise

High school talent has to be developed. You can take a group of 3 and 4 star guys and win
It's happening all over the country

If they handed out the trophy over recruiting battles, why play the game?

[chriscooper40]

As a former non scholarship small sport (swimming) college athlete I hate all the pay the football players talk. Either you pay all or you pay none. As a swimmer we actually put more practice time in during our season, we traveled just as much as football, missed just as much class time. But all we are told is your education is the reward. I'm tired of pumping up the football players as more important than the rest of the student body. It's ridiculous

People argue that fb/bkb players should get paid because the school uses them to get revenue(for the bigger schools). But no offense, the school isn't making money off the swimmers

[Burks]

Either every college athlete gets paid or none of them get paid.

[fullmetal]

My booster requirements would sky rocket. No thank you. The minimum contribution to obtain the opportunity to purchase season tickets would price most of us out. Many donate $50k per year. I can't, though they call and ask for more money at least three nights a week during football season.

[here2fu]

The reality is with football college is the minor leagues. The nba at least has the D league.

[atoaz12]

Either every college athlete gets paid or none of them get paid.

Reasoning?

[TheFrenzy]

The Solution:

- Don't pay them.
- Don't restrict them from earning an income.

If a kid wants to parlay his Heisman year into a $20 million shoe deal, let him. Let the free market ride.

[atoaz12]

The Solution:

- Don't pay them.
- Don't restrict them from earning an income.

If a kid wants to parlay his Heisman year into a $20 million shoe deal, let him. Let the free market ride.

Completely agree

By dont pay, do you mean no one associated with the school?

I could see that working
The high end guys will get endorsements

[Scottish Punk]

I get the argument that players should be paid. A large part of me says yes, let's take all the fake "scholar" athlete out of the equation. I can see one or more of these things happening.

1. 80 or so schools will break off and be in their own division working under existing rules. These are the schools that can't compete monetarily with the big schools.
2. Schools will shut down one or more non revenue generating sports in order to save costs and pump more money into Basketball and Football.
3. Ticket costs will go up.
4. Less student ticket allocation for trade of more luxury box and higher priced tickets.
5. Less overall scholarships for some school. They will pay for some higher priced guys and rely on walk ons.

Probably a lot more stuff that I am not thinking of. In short, the whole dynamic would change. The big name top tier schools will be ran as a minor league team.

[Pot Roast]

The Solution:

- Don't pay them.
- Don't restrict them from earning an income.

If a kid wants to parlay his Heisman year into a $20 million shoe deal, let him. Let the free market ride.

Agreed. If you dont Know how to pay them, let the market decide.

[groundsupport]

Remember Maurice Clarette?

[mikeyp]

Cool?

Same old story. Nothing new. 50% of people say pay them. 50% of people say don't. It'll never change because you'll never come up with an equitable system.

If you pay Myles Jack are you paying the backup RT the same amount? How are you going to decide? And if you are paying them all the same, which you'd have to, it won't be enough to change anything for a future NFL player. It'll be peanuts if they are really worried about getting hurt.

And that ignores paying any other sport. How many athletic departments operate in the black when you factor in all sports? The last study from 2014 said like 20 athletic departments, out of every single school, actually make any money after Football and Men's Basketball fund all the other sports.

It still cracks me up that everyone is "The NCAA sucks" as if this isn't an NFL rule that he couldn't have already gone Pro. The NFL is in charge of their feeder system. The NFL could have let Myles Jack in last year. Not the NCAA.

NCAA is just easier to pick on.

Which is way off topic and another thread I suppose.

Either way I don't blame Jack. I'm fine with whatever he chooses.

But piling on the NCAA is beating a dead horse that isn't really their fault

+1. Great Post. Couldn't have said it better!

[asujbl]

You're making a gigantic assumption that there are THAT many boosters out there willing to pay that kind of money and THAT many kids each year worth that kind of payday

It's all demand. QB and running backs and once every 5-6 year talents like Clowney or Nkemdiche may garner that.

But even if they do, who cares? Practice squad NFL guys get that
I'd argue Boykin at TCU means more to the university than a practice squad guy to his franchise

High school talent has to be developed. You can take a group of 3 and 4 star guys and win
It's happening all over the country

If they handed out the trophy over recruiting battles, why play the game?

You are straight out of your mind if you think every "5-6 year talents" would garner that kind of coin if you made College athletics open season on buying players. Straight up out of your mind. If you could pay players anything you wanted to get them to come to your school? It'd be anarchy.

Oregon would have one jersey, instead of 50, because Phil Knight would be buying a Defense instead of stupid looking colors for another helmet.

There are dozens of players, every single year, that would be put into bidding wars with teams like Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan etc... that have the biggest donors. It's not even close.

I live in Columbus, have my entire life other then college, when I went to Arizona State. Both major state schools. Both are Top 3 in terms of college attendance.

Arizona State might as well fold if you made this a free market. Their donors are crap and their athletic budget is crap. A similar size team like Ohio State or Texas would blow them out of the water. They wouldn't even need to offer any kids any money because it would never be enough.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make with Boykin and PS players.

And in terms of 3 & 4 star teams winning? Who exactly?

Ohio State is a 4 and 5 star school with a few 3 stars thrown in. So is Bama. So is Auburn. So is LSU. So was Florida (when they were winning).

Now look at the teams that have won that last dozen titles.

The 3 star guy that makes it big (AJ Hawk, James Laurinaitis, etc... for a team like the Buckeyes) are always great stories. They are the Tom Brady and Russell Wilson late round picks of College Football.

But the reality is that you need to be a big time recruiter to win titles.

And if College Football was a "free market" as you are suggesting?

80% of teams might as well just be playing for fun.

[atoaz12]

You are straight out of your mind if you think every "5-6 year talents" would garner that kind of coin if you made College athletics open season on buying players. Straight up out of your mind. If you could pay players anything you wanted to get them to come to your school? It'd be anarchy.

Oregon would have one jersey, instead of 50, because Phil Knight would be buying a Defense instead of stupid looking colors for another helmet.

There are dozens of players, every single year, that would be put into bidding wars with teams like Ohio State, Texas, USC, Michigan etc... that have the biggest donors. It's not even close.

I live in Columbus, have my entire life other then college, when I went to Arizona State. Both major state schools. Both are Top 3 in terms of college attendance.

Arizona State might as well fold if you made this a free market. Their donors are crap and their athletic budget is crap. A similar size team like Ohio State or Texas would blow them out of the water. They wouldn't even need to offer any kids any money because it would never be enough.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make with Boykin and PS players.

And in terms of 3 & 4 star teams winning? Who exactly?

Ohio State is a 4 and 5 star school with a few 3 stars thrown in. So is Bama. So is Auburn. So is LSU. So was Florida (when they were winning).

Now look at the teams that have won that last dozen titles.

The 3 star guy that makes it big (AJ Hawk, James Laurinaitis, etc... for a team like the Buckeyes) are always great stories. They are the Tom Brady and Russell Wilson late round picks of College Football.

But the reality is that you need to be a big time recruiter to win titles.

And if College Football was a "free market" as you are suggesting?

80% of teams might as well just be playing for fun.

How is the scenario you are painting any different than what is currently happening in terms of who wins and who loses?

80% of teams are playing for fun because they have no shot. And they had no shot before the season began.

The power teams win because they have money for coaches and recruiting and facilities.

The only difference is now the players are getting compensated instead of the schools and the coaches.

And to my point about lesser recruiting teams being successful: TCU had the 15th best recruiting classes over the past 4 seasons (2010-14). Michigan State 13. Georgia Tech 22. Baylor 14.

And all those teams finished in the top 10 last year.

That means 3 and 4 star players became high end players, maxed their potential within a system and helped their teams succeed.

It's funny you mention Arizona State, because I worked there in their athletic department from 2010-2011. So I get what you're saying.

But, let's be honest, schools like that aren't going to win anyway. They don't CARE enough. Can't even fill the stadium.

So once again. Nothing would change in terms of who is winning and who is mediocre and who is losing.

Only now, players can get something for their abilities. Which is incredibly American :D

[runrickyrun]

It's an easy fix - if we have actuaries that can create an equation that accounts for a myriad of factors when determining insurance rates, you can't tell me that the NCAA can't hire them to figure this out.

An NCAA athlete invests enough time that they are unable to hold any stable job. In addition to their free education, pay them an hourly wage for the number of hours they commit to the game (practice, travel, training, rehab, etc.) and add a daily allowance for food. HOWEVER, by definition, they are student-athletes. If they don't attend class, pass courses, etc. they should lose their eligibility for additional payment. This could solve their "financial" woes and regain some of the academic accountability that has been lost.

[asujbl]

How is the scenario you are painting any different than what is currently happening in terms of who wins and who loses?

80% of teams are playing for fun because they have no shot. And they had no shot before the season began.

The power teams win because they have money for coaches and recruiting and facilities.

The only difference is now the players are getting compensated instead of the schools and the coaches.

And to my point about lesser recruiting teams being successful: TCU had the 15th best recruiting classes over the past 4 seasons (2010-14). Michigan State 13. Georgia Tech 22. Baylor 14.

And all those teams finished in the top 10 last year.

That means 3 and 4 star players became high end players, maxed their potential within a system and helped their teams succeed.

It's funny you mention Arizona State, because I worked there in their athletic department from 2010-2011. So I get what you're saying.

But, let's be honest, schools like that aren't going to win anyway. They don't CARE enough. Can't even fill the stadium.

So once again. Nothing would change in terms of who is winning and who is mediocre and who is losing.

Only now, players can get something for their abilities. Which is incredibly American :D

Way too simplistic.

If you had a free market, which is what you were suggesting, it'd be chaos.

And if you paid players based on "abilities" it'd be chaos.

And if you paid players a small "salary" it won't change anything. Myles Jack isn't coming back to UCLA for $10,000

And if you only pay the revenue generating sports, which in reality is one sport (very few Men's Basketball truly run in the black), what about everyone else? That's going to be a good look when Braxton Miller is making $50,000 and the kid that won the Wrestling National Championship (who also goes to Ohio State) make $0.00

Chaos everywhere.

The only solution is for the NFL and NBA to change their regulations, not the NCAA, and good luck getting the billion dollar industries to care.

[asujbl]

It's an easy fix - if we have actuaries that can create an equation that accounts for a myriad of factors when determining insurance rates, you can't tell me that the NCAA can't hire them to figure this out.

An NCAA athlete invests enough time that they are unable to hold any stable job. In addition to their free education, pay them an hourly wage for the number of hours they commit to the game (practice, travel, training, rehab, etc.) and add a daily allowance for food. HOWEVER, by definition, they are student-athletes. If they don't attend class, pass courses, etc. they should lose their eligibility for additional payment. This could solve their "financial" woes and regain some of the academic accountability that has been lost.

This is a "solution" if you pay everyone. Which I assume you are in this scenario.

It doesn't address the larger issue though.

Would it be a nice chunk of change for a bunch of student athletes? Sure... but it doesn't stop Myles Jack from leaving school as a 1st rounder. It doesn't stop the talk of Fournette sitting out a year of school to train on his own. The dollars simply aren't big enough to make the kid do a 180.

So I think it's a good idea. I do think all student athletes deserve a small stipend... and probably the same stipend (at least by sport - and every player on that team gets the same - I don't think you can pay based on ability obviously by my other posts)

But it won't change the big money guys from leaving for the NBA and/or talking about sitting out for the NFL

[GB5HOF]

The NFL loves to have it both ways.

They have a FREE, massively popular minor league system, that funds itself. The NFL Draft is getting as popular as the Super Bowl.

If the NCAA doesn't want to pay student athletes...then the NFL should have a minor league system like MLB and the NHL for players who don't want to be "compensated" with a semi-free education.

I understand both sides of the pay or don't pay argument. I just think the kids should have the option to choose.

Just my two cents.

[DigsUT]

I am completely fine with having the school not paying its athletes, due to the fact that you would have to pay everyone and not all schools could afford to do that. However, I do have a problem with schools and the NCAA making money off students names and not compensating said students. If a jersey or piece of memorabilia is sold with that players name or likeness on it, they should get a cut once they leave the institution.

[atoaz12]

Way too simplistic.

If you had a free market, which is what you were suggesting, it'd be chaos.

And if you paid players based on "abilities" it'd be chaos.

And if you paid players a small "salary" it won't change anything. Myles Jack isn't coming back to UCLA for $10,000

And if you only pay the revenue generating sports, which in reality is one sport (very few Men's Basketball truly run in the black), what about everyone else? That's going to be a good look when Braxton Miller is making $50,000 and the kid that won the Wrestling National Championship (who also goes to Ohio State) make $0.00

Chaos everywhere.

The only solution is for the NFL and NBA to change their regulations, not the NCAA, and good luck getting the billion dollar industries to care.

You're absolutely right about the pro leagues not caring.

They don't and have no reason to.

The idea is not to try and keep kids in school or away from the pro leagues.

It's to do what the pro leagues won't - give them the chance to make money at whatever age, school year, etc.

In this situation, it doesn't matter if it is a revenue generating sport or not. The school doesn't have to pay the wrestler or the volleyball player.

Sponsors or boosters determine that.

At Iowa, the wrestler may make more money than a basketball player. Because wrestling is relevant at Iowa.

At Kentucky, the basketball player is going to get paid more than the football player. Because basketball is king.

I'm not sure what is chaotic about that. People make different amounts of money depending on what they do in life and where.

Not everyone will get paid. For some people, their payment truly will be their scholarship because that scholarship is commensurate to what they bring to the school. And honestly, for some sports, a scholarship is over-payment for what is brought in.

That is what is truly fair. Braxton and the wrestler shouldn't make the same.

[SanAntonioSpurs]

Ok, pay them. But eliminate ALL scholarships and give them the bill for tuition, room, board, work out facilities, individual coaches, uniforms, game transportation, hotel and medical costs. I'd be fine with that.

[Kelper7]

That would never work - as I mention below - there are 5-8 teams that could clearly "outpay" every other team. What stops an Ohio State booster from paying a kid $250,000 for an "autograph" session when Team B can only afford $25,000? You can tell me there should be a limit but then you're bringing the NCAA back into it.

Let's say you pay the players - hell lets say you pay everyone (whether that means every Football player or every athlete in general) the same thing - is Myles Jack going to stay at UCLA for another year if you're giving him $10,000 over the course of a year when he knows the millions on the other side? It helps him pay his rent - that's great for a backup RT - it's not going to make Myles Jack do a 180 and stay at UCLA

You're telling me the Clowney, and now Fournette, conversations don't happen if you're paying them a stipend each month? Those dollars don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things to a potential 1st round pick. It'd just be extra dollars to waste on frivolous items.

So then you go down the road of paying players based on performance? What they generate for the school? What jerseys sell?

So what's stopping my school, Ohio State, from paying a HS kid $150K to come to Columbus (since they have a Top 5 operating budget) when another school can only offer $50K? If we're paying based on performance when is the performance judged? High School? When your jersey sells? When you're on a magazine? Who at Nike gets to decide that Braxton Miller is worth more then Aldophous Washington because no one is going to buy a DT's jersey? Does Cardale get a bonus for the NCG? or does JT for the Big-10 POY award?

So you tell me the "schools" wouldn't do that... fine.

What's then to stop a donor from contributing a $150K to the University but only with a wink wink agreement of where it goes? How are you going to police that? People already put their endowments to the University for specific items (art, healthcare, etc...) athletics would easily turn into the same thing.

I get the paying players argument. I really do. I feel bad for some of the guys and the money they generate.

That being said there is absolutely no logical way, none, to pay players and make it fair.

Either players on the same team are going to be pissed off because they can't negotiate contracts (Braxton vs. Cardale vs. JT debate - but just with money). Players for other sports are going to be pissed off. Universities that have the money are going to get all the players (even more then they do now)

There just isn't enough money you can give a 1st round pick in Football or Basketball that will really make a difference. They either want to be in College or they are focused on the Pros... and if they get injured that focus might take them out of college (like what we are discussing now)

Paying Myles Jack a "salary" isn't going to change what happened. That salary would never be enough money.



BOOM. Nailed it.

[atoaz12]

BOOM. Nailed it.

I'm still interested in hearing how it would be different than it is now - not for arguments sake but because I'm truly interested in the subject. Completely willing to alter my thinking on it

The main schools that have boosters and sponsors that would pay tons of money - top SEC schools, Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma... those are the schools that are always up for the title anyway

When was the last time that there was a surprise winner in football?
Even baskeball?

It's the same blue bloods.

A Butler might make a run. Or a Utah or Boise in football.

But in the end, there's only about a 15 every year who have a legit chance

[Scottish Punk]

I'm still interested in hearing how it would be different than it is now - not for arguments sake but because I'm truly interested in the subject. Completely willing to alter my thinking on it

The main schools that have boosters and sponsors that would pay tons of money - top SEC schools, Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma... those are the schools that are always up for the title anyway

When was the last time that there was a surprise winner in football?
Even baskeball?

It's the same blue bloods.

A Butler might make a run. Or a Utah or Boise in football.

But in the end, there's only about a 15 every year who have a legit chance

Its not just that these small schools can't compete. If you go to open market system, many will just close or form their own junior league. You will be left with say 30 blue bloods that only play each other. Right now, money taken in by the blue bloods are at least partially shared throughout the conference. I think you will have a larger disparity of haves and have nots.

[Skootown]

They can at the very least pay for the sholarship athletes to eat, and should probably give a small stipend to live off of as well.

A lot of these guys come from very poor families. Reminds me of Arian Foster (i think) talking about how he and a bunch of other FB players at Tenn literally had to call their coach and BEG him to get them some food because they didn't have money to eat.

Here you have a University making MILLIONS off of ticket sales, t-shirts, jerseys, and hats sold, and the town is making a ton on hotels, restuarants, etc.

Meanwhile the guys who are creating all this money are starving for a bite to eat?

I dunno what the exact solution is, but that ain't right.

Ohio St graduates like 6 football players a year. Let's not act like giving their players an education is high on the list for them.

[Clarka3]

Education is their compensation because well..you know... education IS their compensation.

The day college athletes start getting paid to play as a student athlete is the day I stop watching all college sports.

we'll, the schools certainly make quite a profit off the backs of these athletes.


i'm on both sides. One, I know how much money the schools pull in from the athlete's labor. These kids have to do above and beyond the work that other "normal" students do.

On the other side, they get a scholarship for a free education.


I think a happy compromise is an increase in their stipends (the amount of money they are given to make sure they don't "need" a job). I would also suggest that they be allowed to profit off of their own namesake (autograph signings etc.). I had no issue with what Manziel "supposedly" did, aside from the fact that it was definitely against the current rules.

[Boo]

They can at the very least pay for the sholarship athletes to eat, and should probably give a small stipend to live off of as well.

A lot of these guys come from very poor families. Reminds me of Arian Foster (i think) talking about how he and a bunch of other FB players at Tenn literally had to call their coach and BEG him to get them some food because they didn't have money to eat.

Here you have a University making MILLIONS off of ticket sales, t-shirts, jerseys, and hats sold, and the town is making a ton on hotels, restuarants, etc.

Meanwhile the guys who are creating all this money are starving for a bite to eat?

I dunno what the exact solution is, but that ain't right.

Ohio St graduates like 6 football players a year. Let's not act like giving their players an education is high on the list for them.

I have to LOL. They have and DO get a meal plan. Also I believe the NCAA said a few years back that they could have "unlimited" food for D1 players, including walk ons.

[atoaz12]

Its not just that these small schools can't compete. If you go to open market system, many will just close or form their own junior league. You will be left with say 30 blue bloods that only play each other. Right now, money taken in by the blue bloods are at least partially shared throughout the conference. I think you will have a larger disparity of haves and have nots.

The NCAA system and conference alignment would stay in place.

Fans and, more importantly, boosters (the ones footing the bill in my scenario) would balk at getting rid of the natural rivalries that exist with the major conferences.

Nothing would change in my made up world other than the rules regulating the payment of players from outside sources.

[atoaz12]

They can at the very least pay for the sholarship athletes to eat, and should probably give a small stipend to live off of as well.

A lot of these guys come from very poor families. Reminds me of Arian Foster (i think) talking about how he and a bunch of other FB players at Tenn literally had to call their coach and BEG him to get them some food because they didn't have money to eat.

Here you have a University making MILLIONS off of ticket sales, t-shirts, jerseys, and hats sold, and the town is making a ton on hotels, restuarants, etc.

Meanwhile the guys who are creating all this money are starving for a bite to eat?

I dunno what the exact solution is, but that ain't right.

Ohio St graduates like 6 football players a year. Let's not act like giving their players an education is high on the list for them.

I have to LOL. They have and DO get a meal plan. Also I believe the NCAA said a few years back that they could have "unlimited" food for D1 players, including walk ons.

Arian Foster admits in documentary he took money at Tennessee - Football - SI.com (http://www.si.com/football/2013/09/20/arian-foster-documentary-comments-about-being-paid-tennessee)

Here's the Foster info

The food thing threw me for a loop too. And I thought they had the opportunity for free living as well.

Arian has always been a little different

[MeteoriteGuy]

I get the argument that players should be paid. A large part of me says yes, let's take all the fake "scholar" athlete out of the equation. I can see one or more of these things happening.

1. 80 or so schools will break off and be in their own division working under existing rules. These are the schools that can't compete monetarily with the big schools.
2. Schools will shut down one or more non revenue generating sports in order to save costs and pump more money into Basketball and Football.
3. Ticket costs will go up.
4. Less student ticket allocation for trade of more luxury box and higher priced tickets.
5. Less overall scholarships for some school. They will pay for some higher priced guys and rely on walk ons.

Probably a lot more stuff that I am not thinking of. In short, the whole dynamic would change. The big name top tier schools will be ran as a minor league team.

Also, the school would pretty much be publicly saying, we are not an engineering college (or whatever specialty they are), we are a football college. It would lessen the degree of the student body in general.

If I am a college and I am starting to pay students. It would be to attract engineers, nurses or other like job oriented degrees.

The purpose of the college is to educate....not score pts. saturday.

Having said that, players should get pay, but like 5-10 grand a year. Not much money. Just enough to buy clothes, food and have a few bucks left.

[mfisher27]

I will never change my mind that an athlete should be paid to attend a school to play sports. They receive their scholarship as payment from the school. I have no problem with them pursuing other forms of income whether it be from autograph signings, jersey sales, other appearances. etc., like mentioned above in Manziel's case. I have no problem with that. It's not associated with the school, just the player himself.

[fullmetal]

Also, the school would pretty much be publicly saying, we are not an engineering college (or whatever specialty they are), we are a football college. It would lessen the degree of the student body in general.

If I am a college and I am starting to pay students. It would be to attract engineers, nurses or other like job oriented degrees.

The purpose of the college is to educate....not score pts. saturday.

Having said that, players should get pay, but like 5-10 grand a year. Not much money. Just enough to buy clothes, food and have a few bucks left.

I once thought that way


College prepared individuals for the world ahead and their careers. Not all careers are in science. While the field is competitive, professional sports is a career path and universities provide an avenue to pursue it, from training to advertising career fairs. Look at it as a career choice and it changes how you view it. Actors are not using physics, but they are professionals and choose education paths that better prepare them for their hopeful future.

I would like to see student removed from their classification.

[NoleinJax]

People seem to think that the only thing these athletes get is a scholarship. They get a whole lot more than just a scholarship. People say some of these athletes should be paid much more than others which is a joke. The schools are giving these athletes opportunities to show their skills in order to become a professional. They offer them top notch facilities to train and improve their skills. If they think they deserve to get paid, let them sit out for 3 years after high school and train on their own or pay a trainer and see if you have a shot to get to the pros. It's always all about me me me. What can I get? I need more. Give me a break. Now I do think that they should get some sort of stipend so they can go out to the movies or take a girl out on a nice date, definitely, but I promise you that if they start giving select athletes a lot more money than others it will cause problems in the locker rooms and impact team morale. Most college football fans are fans of the school, not necessarily individual players as they come and go through the years. Next we'll hear that high school players need to be paid since they have games on ESPN and I'm sure the schools make some money off of it. Sorry for the mini rant, but if they start paying college players a salary based on some perceived value instead of giving them all an equal cost of living stipend or something then all we will be watching is semi-pro football and you will see a lot of schools shut down their programs because they won't be able to compete with the big money schools. That will be a sad day.

[crac0018]

That would never work - as I mention below - there are 5-8 teams that could clearly "outpay" every other team. What stops an Ohio State booster from paying a kid $250,000 for an "autograph" session when Team B can only afford $25,000? You can tell me there should be a limit but then you're bringing the NCAA back into it.

Let's say you pay the players - hell lets say you pay everyone (whether that means every Football player or every athlete in general) the same thing - is Myles Jack going to stay at UCLA for another year if you're giving him $10,000 over the course of a year when he knows the millions on the other side? It helps him pay his rent - that's great for a backup RT - it's not going to make Myles Jack do a 180 and stay at UCLA

You're telling me the Clowney, and now Fournette, conversations don't happen if you're paying them a stipend each month? Those dollars don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things to a potential 1st round pick. It'd just be extra dollars to waste on frivolous items.

So then you go down the road of paying players based on performance? What they generate for the school? What jerseys sell?

So what's stopping my school, Ohio State, from paying a HS kid $150K to come to Columbus (since they have a Top 5 operating budget) when another school can only offer $50K? If we're paying based on performance when is the performance judged? High School? When your jersey sells? When you're on a magazine? Who at Nike gets to decide that Braxton Miller is worth more then Aldophous Washington because no one is going to buy a DT's jersey? Does Cardale get a bonus for the NCG? or does JT for the Big-10 POY award?

So you tell me the "schools" wouldn't do that... fine.

What's then to stop a donor from contributing a $150K to the University but only with a wink wink agreement of where it goes? How are you going to police that? People already put their endowments to the University for specific items (art, healthcare, etc...) athletics would easily turn into the same thing.



Don't be so naive to think this doesn't happen today and hasn't always happened. Remember Reggie Bush and Miami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_University_of_Miami_athletics_scandal)? For all the scandals that get reported, there are certainly many more cases of improper benefits being given to top athletes. This is just another story of the "Haves" vs the "Have Nots"

I did find your first sentence interesting - about 5-8 large schools who could "outpay" all other schools. Doesn't this kinda already happen with coaches? Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer are making, what, in the $5million/year range? I don't see Delta State or Ohio Northern being able to make a bid for their services. And would Jim Harbaugh ever consider coaching at Delta, if money were equal? Probably not. My guess is college kids would think the same way too.

If the NCAA wanted to pay players for performance, it would be done. And for the athletes who cry foul, they'd tell them to get over it because, seriously, what recourse does a walk-on 4th-string guard really have? Would some players leave and focus on academics? Probably. But my guess is the top, most marketable athletes are there to move onto the professional level and they're the ones who'll get paid. It happens at the NFL; it happens in every other line of business. Those who produce the most get paid over those who don't perform as well.

But you're right, this will never happen. That's because there's absolutely no incentive for the NCAA to pay players. It's always about the money.

[Skootown]

Has anyone ever figured out what the NCAA actually does?

I mean other than collect money and dole out punishments.

[asujbl]

Don't be so naive to think this doesn't happen today and hasn't always happened. Remember Reggie Bush and Miami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_University_of_Miami_athletics_scandal)? For all the scandals that get reported, there are certainly many more cases of improper benefits being given to top athletes. This is just another story of the "Haves" vs the "Have Nots"

I did find your first sentence interesting - about 5-8 large schools who could "outpay" all other schools. Doesn't this kinda already happen with coaches? Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer are making, what, in the $5million/year range? I don't see Delta State or Ohio Northern being able to make a bid for their services. And would Jim Harbaugh ever consider coaching at Delta, if money were equal? Probably not. My guess is college kids would think the same way too.

If the NCAA wanted to pay players for performance, it would be done. And for the athletes who cry foul, they'd tell them to get over it because, seriously, what recourse does a walk-on 4th-string guard really have? Would some players leave and focus on academics? Probably. But my guess is the top, most marketable athletes are there to move onto the professional level and they're the ones who'll get paid. It happens at the NFL; it happens in every other line of business. Those who produce the most get paid over those who don't perform as well.

But you're right, this will never happen. That's because there's absolutely no incentive for the NCAA to pay players. It's always about the money.


Of course it happens. No one is denying that.

Making it legal to pay guys whatever you want makes it better? That's insanity at it's finest.

[blevins26]

I'm completely against paying college athletes. The are already getting "paid". Free tuition, free meal plans, world class training facilities, coaching, medical, etc.

I say just let players of any sport leave early for the pros whenever they want. Keep the existing rules with regard to scholarships, meal plans, not getting paid, etc.

This makes it fair for all sports and all the athletes. It's a free market mentality.

If there is a pro team willing to compensate you, it's your choice to go take it. Let 18 year old kids who are adult enough to die for our country make an adult decision regarding their career. Will some of them make stupid decisions and end up broke at 22? Yup. But it will be the outcome of their own decisions, not a system that was stacked against them.

[atoaz12]

People seem to think that the only thing these athletes get is a scholarship. They get a whole lot more than just a scholarship. People say some of these athletes should be paid much more than others which is a joke. The schools are giving these athletes opportunities to show their skills in order to become a professional. They offer them top notch facilities to train and improve their skills. If they think they deserve to get paid, let them sit out for 3 years after high school and train on their own or pay a trainer and see if you have a shot to get to the pros. It's always all about me me me. What can I get? I need more. Give me a break. Now I do think that they should get some sort of stipend so they can go out to the movies or take a girl out on a nice date, definitely, but I promise you that if they start giving select athletes a lot more money than others it will cause problems in the locker rooms and impact team morale. Most college football fans are fans of the school, not necessarily individual players as they come and go through the years. Next we'll hear that high school players need to be paid since they have games on ESPN and I'm sure the schools make some money off of it. Sorry for the mini rant, but if they start paying college players a salary based on some perceived value instead of giving them all an equal cost of living stipend or something then all we will be watching is semi-pro football and you will see a lot of schools shut down their programs because they won't be able to compete with the big money schools. That will be a sad day.

The NCAA Just Misses $1 Billion In Annual Revenue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/ncaa-revenue-2014_n_6851286.html)

Almost $1 billion dollars...

The payment for a brilliant math student is their scholarship. That student can then go out, while in school, and earn whatever they can make off their likeness, ability, etc.

The payment for a top end athlete is a scholarship. But that student may not go out, while in school or summer break, and earn any money off of their likeness, ability, etc.

HOWEVER, the school AND NCAA WILL put the athlete's image on billboards, cups, programs, posters and their jersey numbers on replica jerseys to make money and generate interest and fan participation. And the player will receive none of it.

The math student is not getting his likeness put on a calculator. And his GPA is not being printed on bookbags to sell at the team store.

You know why? Cause it's not worth anything!!

You know why the college athlete's image is broadcast? Because it's worth something!!!

And they should be allowed to be compensated for it. Not necessarily by the school, but in some form.

Do they have great facilities to improve their craft? Sure. But that is not a one way street. The great facilities help bring in the great players which brings in the wins which brings fan and booster support which... gives the university more money to further exploit the players.

[The Card Album]

Without the opportunity to excel in sports, half of the NCAA athletes would be stuck in the slums and ghettos, not able to scrape by. Now they have an education they would not have been offered, let alone afford, as well as an opportunity through hard work to make six to seven figures a year in the pros after 3-4 years of being a student athlete.

Granted, some players are still dumb as dirt, or sound like it because they still speak like they're in the hood or out on a farm, but many have a solid secondary education to better their lives.

[TheFrenzy]

Dudes, just remove the income restrictions and the entire problem goes away.

College musicians can play and march for their college still record and profit from platinum albums.

Scientists work for both universities and corporations ALL THE TIME.

Yeah, Oklahoma State would probably dominate OU. Yeah, SMU would be a player again. Who cares? Projecting Heisman winners out of high school is still a crapshoot and with transfer rules in place, it's not like we're going to the second coming of the 1990s Yankees. It would still be Any Given Saturday, just without the Tyrone Prothro's and DeAndre Brown's seeing their incredible skills never earn them a substantial dime.

[hanstess]

All of the top recruits have been getting hookers and cars for years.

[mr10pin]

Just curious...

For those that say the scholarship they earn is meaningless or worthless or whatever...have any of you had to pay your own way, had a child have to pay their own way or paid for your child to attend college at the full value? I'm talking very limited grants and scholarships. It's expensive...it's definitely worth something.

My daughter is a freshman at Ohio State. 3.9 GPA in High School, 28 on the ACT. Played sports in high school and did volunteer work. You know what? She's not a genius, but she's no dummy either. That earned her a $1,000 annual scholarship. Ohio State will cost her/us $23,000 this year. Can she work to pay for it? Yes she can...if she can find a job that will pay $14.75 per hour and give her 40 hours per week.

[NickM]

If schools pay players stipends, are those stipends the same for all players on the team? How about across teams in a school? How about across schools in a conference?

Endorsement deals come in several varieties - player share of NCAA-wide product (e.g., video game revenue, player share of team-specific product (e.g., replica jersey with player # on it), national endorsement for a product/service (likely under 10 players in FB and fewer in BK), and local endorsement for a product/service (likely the top few players from each team that is big in its local market - much easier if you're Nebraska than Miami).

How much goes to each player from a school's share of video game revenue? People choose who to play based on team loyalty or a couple skill position guys.

Pay from boosters would actually be more widely spread among players. Any decent coaching staff would make sure all the regular players are taken care of by boosters. The size of the alumni base will matter greatly for what players could expect to receive.

Outside employment would rapidly become pay from boosters for no-show or no-work jobs.

And when you look at the revenue of football programs, a lot of them survive by being a regular non-conference road patsy for powerhouse programs. How much can those schools afford to pay players?

Oh, and if players can get substantial outside income, expect to see scholarship limits evaded by boosters paying for a star player's tuition.

Most of the proposals for paying players will make the powerhouse programs even more consistently powerful.

[atoaz12]

Without the opportunity to excel in sports, half of the NCAA athletes would be stuck in the slums and ghettos, not able to scrape by. Now they have an education they would not have been offered, let alone afford, as well as an opportunity through hard work to make six to seven figures a year in the pros after 3-4 years of being a student athlete.

Granted, some players are still dumb as dirt, or sound like it because they still speak like they're in the hood or out on a farm, but many have a solid secondary education to better their lives.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but just because they're improving from the 'slums', who cares if they don't get what they deserve?
This came off very elitist
It's about what's fair. Where they come from is irrelevant

Dudes, just remove the income restrictions and the entire problem goes away.

College musicians can play and march for their college still record and profit from platinum albums.

Scientists work for both universities and corporations ALL THE TIME.

Yeah, Oklahoma State would probably dominate OU. Yeah, SMU would be a player again. Who cares? Projecting Heisman winners out of high school is still a crapshoot and with transfer rules in place, it's not like we're going to the second coming of the 1990s Yankees. It would still be Any Given Saturday, just without the Tyrone Prothro's and DeAndre Brown's seeing their incredible skills never earn them a substantial dime.

Completely agree!

Just curious...

For those that say the scholarship they earn is meaningless or worthless or whatever...have any of you had to pay your own way, had a child have to pay their own way or paid for your child to attend college at the full value? I'm talking very limited grants and scholarships. It's expensive...it's definitely worth something.

My daughter is a freshman at Ohio State. 3.9 GPA in High School, 28 on the ACT. Played sports in high school and did volunteer work. You know what? She's not a genius, but she's no dummy either. That earned her a $1,000 annual scholarship. Ohio State will cost her/us $23,000 this year. Can she work to pay for it? Yes she can...if she can find a job that will pay $14.75 per hour and give her 40 hours per week.

No one has said a scholarship is worthless. It's very expensive to attend college.
But it's still about appropriate compensation for what the individual brings to the table. And for some, it's more than just what the scholarship is worth

[Wolves4Life]

Pay the players but they have to use the money to pay for their education and must stay at least 3 years and that doesn't include redshirt or they lose the money. Let's see how many take the offer.

[fullmetal]

Require players to rent the stadium to showcase their skills. Have them pay market value for the gym, weight trainers, nutritionist, position coaches, supplements, etc . I saw a university study within the last 10 years that valued non-tuition benefits for D1 football players near $150k per calendar year.

Have them as a group bankroll pro day.

A big program provides them the career boost they would never see on their own.

[TheFrenzy]

What are you smoking?

Require players to rent the stadium to showcase their skills. Have them pay market value for the gym, weight trainers, nutritionist, position coaches, supplements, etc.

So.....the players would get to pocket the full revenue of college football? That would also require a union to organize. But I'm sure the players would still come out ahead getting to keep the massive $$$ college football rakes in annually.

A big program provides them the career boost they would never see on their own.

This is laughable. Top high school seniors, in the absence of college football, would either go into a minor league or be drafted. It's not like the NFL would stop bringing in top talent without college ball. Also, college football only provides <5% of players with a shot an the NFL.

So much about this doesn't make sense.

[preakness]

These players are athletes with nice bodies

Why don't they dance and make extra cash?

[fullmetal]

My point was leave the system alone. So much is left out of any discussion. So much in benefit value is not even mentioned, so I tossed it out there.

In the science department professors and graduate students spend maybe a quarter of their time writing grant proposals seeking funding. These departments would never exist without outside funding specificly due to those benefiting writing grants, applying for loans and dining investors.

Why would players pocket revenue? Who would pay expenses?

It costs $600k-$1m in expenses for each home game hosted.

LSU is losing money today.

[pgisback]

Jack lost all my respect. The NFL has a rule that you have to play a number of years before you can be drafted. If you get injured, that's just the nature of the game. Pandering to these "prospects" and wanting compensation for playing collegiate sports is ridiculous.

//a very upset guy over the players ruining EA Sports ncaaf

[oldgoldy97]

So if a five star recruit was given more money than a walk on, but then the walk on supplants the five star as the starter, does the walk on get a raise and the five star lose money?

I say leave it alone.

[atoaz12]

So if a five star recruit was given more money than a walk on, but then the walk on supplants the five star as the starter, does the walk on get a raise and the five star lose money?

I say leave it alone.

Not sure this ever happens but he would probably get paid more the next year and the five star guy wouldn't make as much
How is this any different than the undrafted center that is currently starting for the Patriots? He'll renegotiate at some point

College doesn't need contracts
Schools don't have to pay them

Leave it to boosters and/or sponsors

Jack lost all my respect. The NFL has a rule that you have to play a number of years before you can be drafted. If you get injured, that's just the nature of the game. Pandering to these "prospects" and wanting compensation for playing collegiate sports is ridiculous.

//a very upset guy over the players ruining EA Sports ncaaf

What's ridiculous is a billion dollar industry that doesn't pay its workers

[pgisback]

Not sure this ever happens but he would probably get paid more the next year and the five star guy wouldn't make as much
How is this any different than the undrafted center that is currently starting for the Patriots? He'll renegotiate at some point

College doesn't need contracts
Schools don't have to pay them

Leave it to boosters and/or sponsors



What's ridiculous is a billion dollar industry that doesn't pay its workers

College athletes aren't workers.

[preakness]

All the college students are workers who work hard to get credits
Why can't all students get paid for their work?

[atoaz12]

College athletes aren't workers.

They are what bring in the revenue, correct?
Should they not be able to receive some monetary payment? Not guaranteed it but capable of pursuing it or receiving it

All the college students are workers who work hard to get credits
Why can't all students get paid for their work?

What money does the 2.5 gpa business student bring in?

I said this earlier but will put it down again:

The payment for a brilliant math student is their scholarship. That student can then go out, while in school, and earn whatever they can make off their likeness, ability, etc.

The payment for a top end athlete is a scholarship. But that student may not go out, while in school or summer break, and earn any money off of their likeness, ability, etc.

HOWEVER, the school AND NCAA WILL put the athlete's image on billboards, cups, programs, posters and their jersey numbers on replica jerseys to make money and generate interest and fan participation. And the player will receive none of it.

The math student is not getting his likeness put on a calculator. And his GPA is not being printed on bookbags to sell at the team store.

You know why? Cause it's not worth anything!!

You know why the college athlete's image is broadcast? Because it's worth something!!!

And they should be allowed to be compensated for it. Not necessarily by the school, but in some form.

[pgisback]

They are what bring in the revenue, correct?
Should they not be able to receive some monetary payment? Not guaranteed it but capable of pursuing it or receiving it



What money does the 2.5 gpa business student bring in?

I said this earlier but will put it down again:

The payment for a brilliant math student is their scholarship. That student can then go out, while in school, and earn whatever they can make off their likeness, ability, etc

The football teams bring in a lot of revenue. So does tuition and grants. Not sure what the point of paying collegiate athletes is. Just because it's become lucrative does not change the point of college football that has existed over a century. It's a sport, there are no guns held to these kids heads to play it.

[atoaz12]

The football teams bring in a lot of revenue. So does tuition and grants. Not sure what the point of paying collegiate athletes is. Just because it's become lucrative does not change the point of college football that has existed over a century. It's a sport, there are no guns held to these kids heads to play it.

I just watched Nick Chubb blow out his knee

Refuse to argue this anymore

Slavery existed for a century too. Ridiculous way of viewing things - 'it's been this way forever'

[preakness]

Slavery?

Didn't know Kunta Kentae was posting for the ND Irish

[pgisback]

I just watched Nick Chubb blow out his knee

Refuse to argue this anymore

Slavery existed for a century too. Ridiculous way of viewing things - 'it's been this way forever'

Are you really bringing up slavery?? Lol. What about the engineers or medical students who make innovations that change the world yet they don't get paid to do it. It's a losing argument, college athletes will never get paid.

[atoaz12]

Slavery?

Didn't know Kunta Kentae was posting for the ND Irish

Are you really bringing up slavery?? Lol. What about the engineers or medical students who make innovations that change the world yet they don't get paid to do it. It's a losing argument, college athletes will never get paid.

Hyperbole to be sure (that wasn't a comparison. It was a statement. People read what they want) but to say 'that's how it's always been done' is the enemy of progression

And the engineer student can make money off of their innovations

[pgisback]

Hyperbole to be sure (that wasn't a comparison. It was a statement. People read what they want) but to say 'that's how it's always been done' is the enemy of progression

And the engineer student can make money off of their innovations

So can athletes when they get out of college. And even bringing up slavery is ridiculous, lol. These kids are playing football, not being forced to anything. It's awesome that it has grown to this level, but in no way should they be paid for being on a collegiate athletic team.

[oldgoldy97]

Not sure this ever happens but he would probably get paid more the next year and the five star guy wouldn't make as much
How is this any different than the undrafted center that is currently starting for the Patriots? He'll renegotiate at some point

College doesn't need contracts
Schools don't have to pay them

Leave it to boosters and/or sponsors




So you're saying that the boosters and/or sponsors should be the ones paying the kids to play, not the schools?

[atoaz12]

So can athletes when they get out of college. And even bringing up slavery is ridiculous, lol. These kids are playing football, not being forced to anything. It's awesome that it has grown to this level, but in no way should they be paid for being on a collegiate athletic team.

Can you explain why it's fair that the student can make money during school for what they accomplish and the athlete can't?

[TheFrenzy]

Let's just sum this up right now:

Anyone have a single good argument as to why college athletes shouldn't be allowed to pursue their own income while in college?

[atoaz12]

So you're saying that the boosters and/or sponsors should be the ones paying the kids to play, not the schools?

Yup. Free market.
The schools payment is the scholarship

The NCAA would have to be restructured to put in the hands of the schools.
I also don't believe that every student athlete should be paid.

Doubt many boosters or sponsors will shell out for the backup soccer goalie

[atoaz12]

Let's just sum this up right now:

Anyone have a single good argument as to why college athletes shouldn't be allowed to pursue their own income while in college?

Absolutely. Would love to hear it :)!

[pgisback]

Can you explain why it's fair that the student can make money during school for what they accomplish and the athlete can't?

What student can make money during school? They don't get paid. Any innovations or cures found by college students, funded by grants belongs to the University. Heck the Internet was created by UCLA students and they didn't get paid to do it.

[atoaz12]

What student can make money during school? They don't get paid. Any innovations or cures found by college students, funded by grants belongs to the University. Heck the Internet was created by UCLA students and they didn't get paid to do it.

18 Famous College Dorm Room Businesses that Made Millions | FastUpFront Small Business Blog (http://www.fastupfront.com/blog/entrepreneurs/18-famous-college-dorm-room-businesses-that-made-millions/)

[pgisback]

18 Famous College Dorm Room Businesses that Made Millions | FastUpFront Small Business Blog (http://www.fastupfront.com/blog/entrepreneurs/18-famous-college-dorm-room-businesses-that-made-millions/)

None of those are funded by the University. Just kids who had ideas while in college. Huge difference then kids playing a sport. They don't have to play it and they didn't innovate or create anything. You act like they're entrepreneurs. They're not, they're athletes. Like Zuckerberg or Gates. They weren't funded by the University for their creations.

[atoaz12]

What Happens When Professors Have Valuable Inventions? (http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/10/29/what-happens-when-professors-have-valuable-inventions/)

Completely get what you're saying but a chemist can still be involved and paid in the development if I'm reading this correctly

[pgisback]

What Happens When Professors Have Valuable Inventions? (http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/10/29/what-happens-when-professors-have-valuable-inventions/)

Completely get what you're saying but a chemist can still be involved and paid in the development if I'm reading this correctly

Professors can make a ton of money. I don't think students can get paid for anything that is funded by their institution. There might be some circumstances where they are, but regardless, 99% of college students do not get paid as professionals regardless of how much money they bring in whether it's ticket sales or grants. Some schools are making ridiculous money off of football, some schools make ridiculous money from donations and grants. Regardless, collegiate athletes should not be paid a salary or be treated as professionals. Talk to the NFL if you have a problem with players having to play couple years before they'll draft them.

[BirdLaw]

The payment for a top end athlete is a scholarship. But that student may not go out, while in school or summer break, and earn any money off of their likeness, ability, etc.

This is the part that the pro-status quo people try so desperately to ignore.

So if you guys could address that part of his post, that would be great. Thanks.

[atoaz12]

Professors can make a ton of money. I don't think students can get paid for anything that is funded by their institution. There might be some circumstances where they are, but regardless, 99% of college students do not get paid as professionals regardless of how much money they bring in whether it's ticket sales or grants. Some schools are making ridiculous money off of football, some schools make ridiculous money from donations and grants. Regardless, collegiate athletes should not be paid a salary or be treated as professionals. Talk to the NFL if you have a problem with players having to play couple years before they'll draft them.

I don't know enough about this to discuss it intelligently but if this is the case with students, I don't think thats fair either. The school can still get there's but the student should be compensated as well.

This is the part that the pro-status quo people try so desperately to ignore.

So if you guys could address that part of his post, that would be great. Thanks.

There's no backing up the status quo that shows it fair to the athlete

Or at least I havent seen it yet. Very wiling to acknowledge it if so

[oldgoldy97]

This is the part that the pro-status quo people try so desperately to ignore.

So if you guys could address that part of his post, that would be great. Thanks.

Can a student-athlete get a job outside of sports while in college? When I was in college my choices were either part-time warehouse worker or unpaid intern in my field of study. I still had to find a way to pay tuition.

If they decide to start paying athletes then doing away with scholarships should be part of the deal.

[oldgoldy97]

Yup. Free market.
The schools payment is the scholarship

The NCAA would have to be restructured to put in the hands of the schools.
I also don't believe that every student athlete should be paid.

Doubt many boosters or sponsors will shell out for the backup soccer goalie

Isn't this how it already is, just not legally done? To think it's not is naive.

[TheFrenzy]

Can a student-athlete get a job outside of sports while in college? When I was in college my choices were either part-time warehouse worker or unpaid intern in my field of study. I still had to find a way to pay tuition.

If they decide to start paying athletes then doing away with scholarships should be part of the deal.

The vast majority here are not saying the unis should pay the players.

Only that the players should be allowed to earn their own income through whatever avenues are open to them. Is there a rebuttal to this common-sense approach?

[Stat Monsters]

Any athlete who gets a scholarship whether academic or sports related should have a contract with the school that once they graduate, that scholarship is more like an advance against royalties/earnings than a loan (so if they don't monetize their experience at the school it's waived), and pay back the school.

The majority of these NCAA players won't get drafted, but will do a good job playing for the school and hopefully are smart enough to both take advantage of their subsidized education as well as take it seriously (don't let 'em pass you so you graduate Magna Cum Dumb Ass).

So, those on sports scholarships who don't get pro-sports money get the free pass for playing for the school, no debt needed to be repaid.

Any player who gets drafted needs to pay the school back, it's pennies to the dollars of the contracts they sign, but it should be paid up front back to the school after the signing, before it's spent on gold chains and multiple cars.

I think it's fair and an athlete should be gracious enough to do that and desperate enough to agree to it up front (to get a free education and opportunity to showcase and improve upon their skills to get to the pros)

[Scottish Punk]

The vast majority here are not saying the unis should pay the players.

Only that the players should be allowed to earn their own income through whatever avenues are open to them. Is there a rebuttal to this common-sense approach?

I could get behind something like this. I do think the university should still get a cut, the percentage can be negotiated. After all they are up fronting the money and means for the athlete's exposure. Paying all athletes would ruin college athletics. I also think guaranteed medical coverage should be granted to the athlete. This includes some extended care after graduation or dropping out. Again how much can be negotiated.

[BirdLaw]

Any athlete who gets a scholarship whether academic or sports related should have a contract with the school that once they graduate, that scholarship is more like an advance against royalties/earnings than a loan (so if they don't monetize their experience at the school it's waived), and pay back the school.

The majority of these NCAA players won't get drafted, but will do a good job playing for the school and hopefully are smart enough to both take advantage of their subsidized education as well as take it seriously (don't let 'em pass you so you graduate Magna Cum Dumb Ass).

So, those on sports scholarships who don't get pro-sports money get the free pass for playing for the school, no debt needed to be repaid.

Any player who gets drafted needs to pay the school back, it's pennies to the dollars of the contracts they sign, but it should be paid up front back to the school after the signing, before it's spent on gold chains and multiple cars.

I think it's fair and an athlete should be gracious enough to do that and desperate enough to agree to it up front (to get a free education and opportunity to showcase and improve upon their skills to get to the pros)

This is just wrong on so, so many levels.

[NickM]

Let's just sum this up right now:

Anyone have a single good argument as to why college athletes shouldn't be allowed to pursue their own income while in college?

It will destroy any semblance of competitive balance among teams, as the schools with the deeper-pocketed alumni bases will be able to offer far more to players to come play for them, including making scholarship limitations meaningless (your 5-star QB recruit is now having his tuition, fees, and expenses paid by a local beer distributor who's giving him a no-show job, so he doesn't need an athletic scholarship).

If you think the smaller and newer programs have a tough time recruiting top talent now, imagine what legalized booster payments to players would do to them.

[TheFrenzy]

It will destroy any semblance of competitive balance among teams, as the schools with the deeper-pocketed alumni bases will be able to offer far more to players to come play for them, including making scholarship limitations meaningless (your 5-star QB recruit is now having his tuition, fees, and expenses paid by a local beer distributor who's giving him a no-show job, so he doesn't need an athletic scholarship).

If you think the smaller and newer programs have a tough time recruiting top talent now, imagine what legalized booster payments to players would do to them.

If anything, it would INCREASE competition. Now smaller schools would actually have something to offer top recruits. Besides, I'm not sure if most people even realize which universities has the richest alumni: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Virginia, Northwestern, etc.

Top 15 Universities With the Most Wealthy Alumni - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-15-universities-wealthy-alumni/story?id=18539608)

[preakness]

If anything, it would INCREASE competition. Now smaller schools would actually have something to offer top recruits. Besides, I'm not sure if most people even realize which universities has the richest alumni: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Virginia, Northwestern, etc.

Top 15 Universities With the Most Wealthy Alumni - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-15-universities-wealthy-alumni/story?id=18539608)

If those school wanted to spend their resources on improving football programs they already would have

The strong would get stronger and those that chest now would stretch rules even more if some kind of payments allowed

[TheFrenzy]

If those school wanted to spend their resources on improving football programs they already would have

The strong would get stronger and those that chest now would stretch rules even more if some kind of payments allowed

:confused: :confused: :confused:

We're talking alumni here. Not the universities themselves.

[NoleinJax]

I just watched Nick Chubb blow out his knee

Refuse to argue this anymore

Slavery existed for a century too. Ridiculous way of viewing things - 'it's been this way forever'

I would bet that Nick Chubb has a pretty nice insurance policy in place in case of a career ending injury. Injuries are part of football at all levels. There's no way to stop them. They could be playing flag football and you would still have guys blowing out their knees. That's why getting a good education and taking advantage of the opportunities they have as athletes (primarily networking) will prepare them for life after football. The average NFL career is not very long so the average NFL player is not going to make enough money during his playing years to last him the rest of his life. And for you to compare college football to slavery is ridiculous and a spit in the face to those whose ancestors were actual slaves. None of these guys have to sign scholarships. They can sit out and practice their craft on their own dime and then try their luck making a team. And if NFL rules weren't in place regarding the 3 years out of high school rule do you think there would be a lot of high school kids actually making NFL rosters? The vast majority would get crushed by men who have gotten years of quality coaching and training during their college and pro years.

[NoleinJax]

If those school wanted to spend their resources on improving football programs they already would have

The strong would get stronger and those that chest now would stretch rules even more if some kind of payments allowed

Those schools don't care to become football powerhouses. They put their money to projects and ideas that can change the world and/or make much more money than football could.

[preakness]

Those schools don't care to become football powerhouses. They put their money to projects and ideas that can change the world and/or make much more money than football could.



Totally agree

So even if the universities, boosters, and alumni had ability to pay players via stipends or job opportunities most of the prestigious schools would use funds elsewhere


The SEC and other power conferences would squash rest

[NickM]

If anything, it would INCREASE competition. Now smaller schools would actually have something to offer top recruits. Besides, I'm not sure if most people even realize which universities has the richest alumni: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Virginia, Northwestern, etc.

Top 15 Universities With the Most Wealthy Alumni - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-15-universities-wealthy-alumni/story?id=18539608)

Those people aren't donating to the athletic department now. Why do you think they would suddenly turn into boosters?

[kbeast89]

I think every school should be allowed to pay like 10 players. That will help distribute talent to all schools making it more competitive.

[atoaz12]

I would bet that Nick Chubb has a pretty nice insurance policy in place in case of a career ending injury. Injuries are part of football at all levels. There's no way to stop them. They could be playing flag football and you would still have guys blowing out their knees. That's why getting a good education and taking advantage of the opportunities they have as athletes (primarily networking) will prepare them for life after football. The average NFL career is not very long so the average NFL player is not going to make enough money during his playing years to last him the rest of his life. And for you to compare college football to slavery is ridiculous and a spit in the face to those whose ancestors were actual slaves. None of these guys have to sign scholarships. They can sit out and practice their craft on their own dime and then try their luck making a team. And if NFL rules weren't in place regarding the 3 years out of high school rule do you think there would be a lot of high school kids actually making NFL rosters? The vast majority would get crushed by men who have gotten years of quality coaching and training during their college and pro years.

No direct comparison was made to the two but people infer and read what they want.

Someone said that something was in place for a century, so why change it

I offered something else that was in place for a long time. Slavery was in place for a century too.

Doing something just because that's how it's been for a long time is incredibly stuck in the mud dumb

Still no one is explaining why it's fair that these kids can't generate money for themselves in a billion dollar industry.

Read this article- don't think anyone did the first time around - Okafur was worth $2.6 million last year. That's found by people much smarter than any of us

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6851286

[BirdLaw]

It will destroy any semblance of competitive balance among teams, as the schools with the deeper-pocketed alumni bases will be able to offer far more to players to come play for them, including making scholarship limitations meaningless (your 5-star QB recruit is now having his tuition, fees, and expenses paid by a local beer distributor who's giving him a no-show job, so he doesn't need an athletic scholarship).

If you think the smaller and newer programs have a tough time recruiting top talent now, imagine what legalized booster payments to players would do to them.

Why is that more important than whether or not an athlete can make money off his own name?

[oldgoldy97]

The vast majority here are not saying the unis should pay the players.

Only that the players should be allowed to earn their own income through whatever avenues are open to them. Is there a rebuttal to this common-sense approach?

No. I agree with that. I don't agree with considering athletes employees of the universities or having the universities pay them beyond the scholarships. If someone like Boykins wants to sign autos and get paid for it, then he should without penalty.