Richard Sherman calls NCAA a scam

[4down20]

Couple questions
1. What does the percentage of kids making the NFL have to do with the amount of money they bring to a university? Nice straw man

Nothing because they don't bring anything to the university. People made a big deal about Johnny Manziel jersey sales. Guess how much that actually was? Less than $50,000.

2. Why would the NFL have interest in High School players? They have a free farm system already. Makes 0 sense to try and subvert that and spend millions on their own development.

Exactly.

3. You are no longer sympathetic, because you are comparing them to the average. Their abilities are not easily replaceable. Unless you are going to tell me that for every Bama or Texas player there are a 100 applicants out there with similar skills. Are you going to make that claim?

I'm no longer sympathetic because they are already getting money that amounts to more than people with jobs in college make. They get training and facilities on top of that worth large amounts of money, free room and board, a free education(which 99% of them actually need) and don't leave college in debt.

As for skills, again most of them would not make it in a professional capacity. If there is such a demand for those skills and so much money involved then there would exist a place for them to go and get paid. That there isn't says it all.

College football is about the schools, not the players.

 

[Codaxx]

I'm no longer sympathetic because they are already getting money that amounts to more than people with jobs in college make. They get training and facilities on top of that worth large amounts of money, free room and board, a free education(which 99% of them actually need) and don't leave college in debt.

As for skills, again most of them would not make it in a professional capacity. If there is such a demand for those skills and so much money involved then there would exist a place for them to go and get paid. That there isn't says it all.

College football is about the schools, not the players.

The reason why should be obvious. People are paid based on the cost and ease of replacing them. People with jobs in college do not have 50 offers to pay for their college. There is just not a lot of demand for their skills. They are easily replaced

Even if they do not go to the NFL there is an obvioys demand for players abilities. If you replaced Yeldon at RB for Bama do you think Bama sells out the stadium? Does Walmart stock Bama shirts?

Is CFB just about schools?it was once dominated by Ivy League schools. Would Oregon sell out every game if they were still terrible? Was it on field success that vaulted Florida's AD budget or just the name of the University that used to be a also ran in the SEC? Oddly A&M raised more money than ever after a successful year and a Heisman trophy winner. If players did not matter that should not have happened

 

[4down20]

The reason why should be obvious. People are paid based on the cost and ease of replacing them. People with jobs in college do not have 50 offers to pay for their college. There is just not a lot of demand for their skills. They are easily replaced

Even if they do not go to the NFL there is an obvioys demand for players abilities. If you replaced Yeldon at RB for Bama do you think Bama sells out the stadium? Does Walmart stock Bama shirts?

Is CFB just about schools?it was once dominated by Ivy League schools. Would Oregon sell out every game if they were still terrible? Was it on field success that vaulted Florida's AD budget or just the name of the University that used to be a also ran in the SEC? Oddly A&M raised more money than ever after a successful year and a Heisman trophy winner. If players did not matter that should not have happened

If the players who could play in the NFL right out of highschool did so, there wouldn't be any change in these things you mention.

99.9% of them aren't going to be taken directly out of highschool, as 99% of them aren't even taken after college.

The changes in college football would be minimal.

 

[Codaxx]

If the players who could play in the NFL right out of highschool did so, there wouldn't be any change in these things you mention.

99.9% of them aren't going to be taken directly out of highschool, as 99% of them aren't even taken after college.

The changes in college football would be minimal.

No idea why you are reverting to this. It is a straw man. It is quite obvious there is a high demand for players and they create a considerable amount of revenue for bigtime athletics. If you can disprove that statement, than you may find a convert.

 

[4down20]

No idea why you are reverting to this. It is a straw man. It is quite obvious there is a high demand for players and they create a considerable amount of revenue for bigtime athletics. If you can disprove that statement, than you may find a convert.

How much do you think A&M made off Manziel jerseys? How about a total of...$60,000 in 2013.

Johnny Manziel jerseys hardly making Texas A&M rich - ESPN

Meanwhile, in the SEC a college football player costs 12 times as much as a normal student, about $160,000 a year.

SEC Schools Spend $163,931 Per Athlete, And Other Ways The NCAA Is A Bonfire For Your Money

Almost half the NFL league minimum of $400,000.

If there was a big time market for these players in excess of what I've listed here, there would be a place for highschool kids to go and make that money. Tell me why is that not happening? If you think they are worth all that money and bring in billions of dollars in revenue then why doesn't it exist?

Why don't they go to the Canadian football league or arena football if they deserve to be paid? The league minimum for arena football is only $31,000. And most players only make between $40,000 and $50,000 a year. And most of these players are players who are BETTER than the overwhelming majority of college players.

So tell me if the players are so valuable, why isn't the arena football league doing better and why aren't they making more there? It's simple - because the schools are what actually has fans, not the players.

 

[Codaxx]

Interesting. If there is no value how come a school like Texas makes 80 million of its football team? Numbers don't lie, people do. How come the SEC spends so much on players? Probably because it is very lucrative to put out what is considered the best product in the business.

 

[Codaxx]

By the way, it is absurd the SEC spends 160k per athlete. I football player pays for himself in the SEC and then some. Seems unfair when you consider the money spent on track in comparison.

 

[4down20]

Interesting. If there is no value how come a school like Texas makes 80 million of its football team? Numbers don't lie, people do. How come the SEC spends so much on players? Probably because it is very lucrative to put out what is considered the best product in the business.

Why does Boise St have trouble selling out their tiny stadium of 37,000 seats while having better players and teams than Texas lately?

Are them numbers good enough for you?

Sure teams that are doing better are in fact going to have more fan participation and money. However, it's the universities and programs themselves which in some cases have over 100 years of history that provide the real value and actually generate the revenue.

And yes, Alabama does get better players and that helps. But what is it that attracts these players to Alabama instead of New Mexico St since they can't be paid? It would appear to me that the players when they are signing and choosing their schools have no trouble seeing that value.

 

[Codaxx]

Why does Boise St have trouble selling out their tiny stadium of 37,000 seats while having better players and teams than Texas lately?

Are them numbers good enough for you?

Sure teams that are doing better are in fact going to have more fan participation and money. However, it's the universities and programs themselves which in some cases have over 100 years of history that provide the real value and actually generate the revenue.

And yes, Alabama does get better players and that helps. But what is it that attracts these players to Alabama instead of New Mexico St since they can't be paid? It would appear to me that the players when they are signing and choosing their schools have no trouble seeing that value.

It's aguable, especially using a longer timeline. Interestingly football revenue dipped the last 2 years at Texas. Probably because of a lack of a quality team. So it seems you have given another data point that players are a factor in revenue. I actually find it funny you are attempting to argue that the quality of the product has no bearing on the financials. That is quite an interesting view from a person born and raised in a capitalist society.

 

[4down20]

It's aguable, especially using a longer timeline. Interestingly football revenue dipped the last 2 years at Texas. Probably because of a lack of a quality team. So it seems you have given another data point that players are a factor in revenue. I actually find it funny you are attempting to argue that the quality of the product has no bearing on the financials. That is quite an interesting view from a person born and raised in a capitalist society.

The quality of the product is relative to the rest of the teams. Texas could be #1 with the same talent as the past 2 years, so long as the talent elsewhere in college football was worse. It's the results, not the talent that cause those changes in revenue. And those changes are relative to the program as well.

Where the talent is distributed has much to do with those results, however these players are going to college either way, by choice, and it's only a matter of what share Texas gets of them. Which is where how much a school spends on them comes in. If better options are available - they would take them. They don't. There is a reason for it.

If you took away the less than 1% of the players who would be able to play in professional football there isn't likely to be any real change in the overall talent or product.

 

[smilesid]

OK, for you who think Sherman to be a total self-centered jerk, a little boy in Boise disagrees.

Nate the Great

 

[TheRobotDevil]

OK, for you who think Sherman to be a total self-centered jerk, a little boy in Boise disagrees.

Great post great story smile

 

[trojanfan12]

He is 100% correct. He is speaking about the P5 and you could argue just a subsection of those schools. There are a lot of comments comparing athletes to common students, but that ignores their value.100k show up to watch Texas play football on a Saturday.Approximately 0 fans show up to watch a thermodynamics test. The Texas debate team as slightly less revenue than the 100 million the football team brought in. There is a reason the banker makes more than the gardener. If you want to attack this issue, you need to figure out where the line lies. Texas,Bama, and OSU are clearly inside the line, directional state is outside. NCAA is starting to take steps to recognize this and eventually there will be a much smaller Div 1 football field

Those thermodynamics test tailgates are off the hook.

 

[Codaxx]

Let's assume Auburn, Ole Miss, A&M and LSU get all the recruits. Bama proceeds to finish last in the West for a decade. The revenue from the program goes away. It is that simple. Bama knows that and that is why they spend so much time and money recruiting. If it was simply about the school, there would be no need to recruit. I think that is a pretty simple truth.

The fallacy of your argument is the crux of the student athletes argument. There is no alternative for a football player. Baseball is much different. MLB has a long established developmental system. Athletes have a choice. NFL has realized they do not need one, because they have a free development league already. It is why a top talent in football must risk injury for an education, while a top talent in baseball gets a 7 figure check. It is also why the elite programs make tens of millions of dollars, while avoiding paying a free market price on talent.

 

[7Samurai13]

Those thermodynamics test tailgates are off the hook.

Have you heard about the cheerleaders/groupies at those thermodynamics games? They can be pretty hot.

 

[bocomo007]

Those thermodynamics test tailgates are off the hook.

but they are kinda hard to hold together...

 

[4down20]

Let's assume Auburn, Ole Miss, A&M and LSU get all the recruits. Bama proceeds to finish last in the West for a decade. The revenue from the program goes away. It is that simple. Bama knows that and that is why they spend so much time and money recruiting. If it was simply about the school, there would be no need to recruit. I think that is a pretty simple truth.

This does not change the fact that the amount of talent needed is relative. You aren't removing the talent from college football, you are simply giving it to the other teams.

Of course revenue is improved when the school is hot. But that amount is clearly dependent on the school as I showed already with Boise St in comparison to Texas.

The fallacy of your argument is the crux of the student athletes argument. There is no alternative for a football player. Baseball is much different. MLB has a long established developmental system. Athletes have a choice. NFL has realized they do not need one, because they have a free development league already. It is why a top talent in football must risk injury for an education, while a top talent in baseball gets a 7 figure check. It is also why the elite programs make tens of millions of dollars, while avoiding paying a free market price on talent.

Only 1.7% of college football players go pro at any point in their career and somehow that is our target category here? And that is not just to the NFL, that doesn't mean they made it past the scout team, that is not all million dollar career.

The other 98%? Yeah, that education is a damn fine deal.

So if you want to remove that 1.7% out of college football because some NFL superstar is an idiot and is for some reason complaining about the ride that brought him millions of dollars - that's fine with me. The other 98% I'm sure will be happen to get an extremely nice paid way through college and leaving it without a bunch of debt. Want to talk about supply and demand - I'm sure there is no shortage of supply to fill in the scholarships of that 1.7%. Because it's a pretty damn good deal, and college revenue will not suffer at all.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Paying student athletes would be a disaster. You just can't do it. Everybody is concerned with the football and basketball players, but they forget about all the other student athletes. If athletes from two sports are getting paid, then all athletes have to get paid and hey all have to be paid equally. It's already ridiculous that some universities can afford to pay their coaches more than some NFL teams, imagine what would happen if they were paying players as well.

I will say that it's ridiculous that student athletes can't market themselves and make money in other ways.

 

[redseat]

Stanford All Pro whatever he wanT's to be called is "calling out" the ncaa?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I don't know, coaches like Nick Saban make over 7 million and his house gets paid off , the university is raking the money in, but players need to be grate full for what they get. Kind of a hard sell IMO. Not to mention coaches can quit on a dime and leave the team high and dry, or they could be fired by the university. It seems like the players are the only ones with no choices, like it or lump it, is what they are told.