arian foster

[imac_21]

I'll partially agree with the money piece.....I meant to touch on that before. Surely the schools make money but that varies wildly by conference and school. HOWEVER, regular students as you call them can generate cash as well. I went to a school where the student researchers generated far more cash than the athletic program. And most of the researchers were not on scholarship. And many were working 70-80 hours a week just in the research labs. I slept in my lab many many nights. Never got a dime from all the patents, consulting, federal and private grants. Not one dollar.

All I'm saying is there are no absolute statements.

I was not a scholarship athlete but most of my friends were. I didn't wear their shoes but I have perspective.

Did the researchers on scholarship risk losing their scholarship if they let someone buy them lunch?

 

[CalamityX11]

I get what you are saying, but it isn't really free though considering the amount of money that the football team brings in each year. They only get paid because their contributions in sports, immediately bring money back to the school.

thats where the crossroads will happen. I would be on the side that the student athletes getting a good amount of accomendations en route to a degree is the payout.

I will say that the players should get royalties from the merchandise. That I will be for. I don't see that as getting paid as part of being the student athlete but fair income due to their involvement in bringing value to the products.

 

[tomikcon1971]

Being a walk on is incredibly hard. They aren't getting the financial assistance that scholarship athletes get and at practice they start immediately on the totem pole. It is easy for coaches to simply overlook these guys as people who won't make the team or automatic redshirts. Plus if you can't afford to be a walk on then that is not an option.

I'm not saying Joe average......I'm talking blue chips. Would this be a better avenue for those guys? I doubt a highly touted prospect would start at the bottom.

 

[CalamityX11]

This is the big issue. I bet a lot of the noise about paying college athletes would disappear if the NCAA backed off on the restrictions. If it was okay for the athletes to accept gifts, there wouldn't be an outcry for them to get some form of compensation in addition to the education.


I think it can easily be argued that the value of a college degree has decreased exponentially in the last 20 years.

that's what kills me... I think so too.

 

[Dodub]

my school was not a division 1 program but the "system" they had wasn't exactly rocket science either.

I'm sure the major football programs offer similar plans if not BETTER due to the higher establishment it is.

I'm not saying Dodub is wrong at all, I'm listening to what he said, all schools are different. How long ago was he playing? All schools are different.

We students had a cash system which we put into at any point of the year and with this "school-cash" we were allowed to purchase(on campus or any outlets in coherence) food, products, equipments, books, etc.. nothing different than using straight cash but something I couldn't believe the big football programs couldn't set up for their student athletes.

I agree that most schools are different in this regard and I imagine that Texas, Alabama, USC, etc. get better benefits than players are KU, K-State, Iowa, Iowa State, Missouri, etc.

I left the football program there my junior year in 2005 so it was quite a while ago, but a buddy of mine played a K-State last season and he had similar experiences.

Again I'm sure it is different for most schools.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I went to a school where the student researchers generated far more cash than the athletic program. And most of the researchers were not on scholarship. And many were working 70-80 hours a week just in the research labs. I slept in my lab many many nights. Never got a dime from all the patents, consulting, federal and private grants. Not one dollar.

This is a two-way street though....a vast number of technological advances are developed at universities, at which point the researcher starts a company and privatizes the profits. Schools usually get a cut of that for some time period, but in general universities are subsidizing the research that then gets turned into personal profits. Research is a big reason tuition costs have ballooned beyond any reasonable measure (example: UC Davis has 27,000 students and 18,000 staff, almost none of whom are involved in teaching)

 

[imac_21]

NCAA football is the fast track on getting players molded and exposed to the next level of football. Where is an alternative?

Basketball is a global sport, that's why the NCAA is no longer the only viable path to the draft. Like Baseball, soccer, hockey... the global sports have more alternatives due the popularity outside the US. My comment of the NCAA was directly at football.

I wasn't advocating banishing the NCAA football, but for Arian, if he wanted to pursue his NFL dream, he had to go through a NCAA football program until there's a major swing in kids leaving HS to play in the CFL? like some Basketball players do(europe, asia etc..)

Again i wasn't implying the end of NCAA football, the schools would suffer big time without it. The school needs the players as the players needs the schools...

The NCAA is the fast track, but that's because it's what been accepted. If a group of people decided they wanted to create a developmental football league for people who have graduated high school and are under 23 years old to compete with the NCAA for talent, and would pay it's players between 75,000 and 150,000 per year it would be successful. If they started this league with 10 teams and played in cities that don't have NFL teams (or played in the spring) which do you think Johnny Manziel chooses. Which would JaDaveon Clowney choose? The NCAA would risk losing it's top 500 or so football talents.

The idea that without the NCAA there would be no outlet for football between HS and the NFL is flawed. The only reason the NCAA was able to offer Foster et al the opportunity to play football is because the NCAA exists. If it didn't exist, something else would.

Even if we restrict other sports strictly to the US, up until very recently HS basketball players had the option of going directly to the NBA, they didn't need the NCAA.
Baseball players are drafted directly out of high school all the time and a very elaborate farm system has been developed. If MLB was restricted only to Americans it could still be very successful without NCAA baseball existing.
There are plenty of Americans that play in the CHL (junior hockey, for 15-20 year olds) and go to the NHL without ever playing college hockey. Even if we ignore the Canadians and Europeans, NCAA hockey is not necessary. USA Hockey is starting to develop a system that allows its top players to bypass the NCAA and the CHL going straight to the NHL. Seth Jones (son of former NBA player Popeye Jones was the 4th overall pick in the NHL draft this year. He never played for a team based out of the USA. he never played college hockey. Most of the top American draft picks in the NHL never play college hockey.

The reason the NCAA has so much power in football is because no one has tried to create a competing league, and the NFL has the 3-year rule for the draft.

 

[imac_21]

And I knew a bunch of student athletes at SJSU. You know what they wanted to spend their $$$ on? Going to bars and clubs.

Oh, so they were college students. . .

Or are you saying it's okay for non-student-athletes to spend their money on going to bars and clubs, but student-athletes have a higher expectation of maturity. The student-athletes are supposed to behave like their 41, not 21.

 

[imac_21]

It definitely wouldn't be easy to measure marketability I would give you that but those are things that would have to be figured out.

I don't know how many schools follow that rule. Is that rule only for when school starts? Because we had three a days for the two and a half weeks prior to school starting and would have nearly doubled that amount of practice. Also do they consider film as practice when determining the 20 hours? Because we had film every day. I agree it would be possible to get a 15 hour a week job, but there are a few questions as to would employers hire such a limited worker, how would that effect academics and would the coaches allow it.

Of course it's easy to measure marketability. It happens all the time in the real world. Who has greater marketability: Colin Kaepernick or Alex Smith? The answer is easy: It's CK. How do I know, because he is the one that is being marketed.

 

[tomikcon1971]

Did the researchers on scholarship risk losing their scholarship if they let someone buy them lunch?

Don't think so but a research scholarship (years ago) was only tuition plus ~$500 per month. NOT included: books, computers, any other supplies, rent, food, car insurance, health insurance, gas, electricity, water, access to a gym, and cable to name a few things.

AND research scholarships require a maintenance of a certain GPA (typically >3.0), a minimum academic workload per semester, teaching a class or lab, research time, publications, and presenting at conferences. Failure to maintain that and the scholarship could be revoked.

If I wrote a great paper or received a patent, I didn't go to a bowl game and get watches, play stations, iPads, and sunglasses.

And finally, it's not like I was in my hometown. I was far way from home and most people were in my same position financially. It wasn't like people were waiting outside my dorm or lab every day looking to take me to Applebee's. I get it.....that was an option, but it's not like gift cards were falling out of trees.

Again, not apples to apples.

 

[tomikcon1971]

This is a two-way street though....a vast number of technological advances are developed at universities, at which point the researcher starts a company and privatizes the profits. Schools usually get a cut of that for some time period, but in general universities are subsidizing the research that then gets turned into personal profits. Research is a big reason tuition costs have ballooned beyond any reasonable measure (example: UC Davis has 27,000 students and 18,000 staff, almost none of whom are involved in teaching)

Times may have changed. I went to school YEARS ago and we had to sign a document saying all our research was owned by the university, not the inventors. They controlled the IP and profited from it. We didn't get jack.

 

[imac_21]

I agree with what your saying above, i'm talking on "paying" the student athletes. I'm much more for education as a student athlete, I feel that's a real gift and reward however not all student athletes feel the same and thus the urge to make the money or get that paper.

I will say players should get royalties(if not already) from the EA sports, jersey sales... I don't think that's paying them, I interpet paying them something else after all the accomendations they are given. But royalties are something different IMO and i'm not backtracking with the royalties comment if some thought I was.

They don't get shit. That's why there will no longer be a licensed EA Sports NCAA football game. Ed O'Bannon and a group of former NCAA athletes (possibly with some current athletes as well now) are suing the NCAA for using their likeness in video games and not compensating them. Apparently the suit is not going well for the NCAA and because of this the NCAA did not renew it's licensing agreement with EA.

After the Manziel-autograph drama where there was all the talk of suspending Manziel indefinitely Jay Bilas decided to call out the NCAA on its hypocrisy on the issue and began tweeting links the ncaashop.com selling Manziel, Clowney, Brigewater, Boyd and McCarron jerseys blasting the NCAA for making money of these guys and not allowing the players to make money off themselves. How did he find them? He went to the NCAA online store and searched for their names (the jerseys don't have their names on them).

Here's one article on it:
Online jersey sales highlight NCAA's hypocrisy on amateurism - College Football - Andy Staples - SI.com

Please click this link, because this is what Bilas used to search for Manziel and Clowney jerseys. See what the NCAA has since done with it.
NCAA.com ? The Official Website of NCAA Championships

 

[tomikcon1971]

One more thing and then I need to bolt for a while. I don't think the current model works. I don't like the NCAA. My main point is its not as simple as paying the athletes. It's a very complicated topic.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I'm not saying athletes are the only ones with struggles and challenges. I'm saying athletes are the only ones that the NCAA actively tries to prevent from addressing their struggles and challenges.

Students not involved in athletics (or not on athletic scholarship) have 0 restrictions in who they can interact with and who they can accept "gifts" from.


Student athletes (at least those on scholarship) have remarkably strict restrictions on who they can accept assistance from and what that assistance is.

Why did Reggie Bush lose his Heisman? If Reggie Bush was an up and coming rocket scientist on scholarship would there have been repercussions if NASA was helping him?

And there's a reason for that - integrity and trying to maintain a leveled playing field across all divisions. It's obviously idealistic, but the rule is there for a reason.

 

[clyde_carbon]

It definitely wouldn't be easy to measure marketability I would give you that but those are things that would have to be figured out.

I don't know how many schools follow that rule. Is that rule only for when school starts? Because we had three a days for the two and a half weeks prior to school starting and would have nearly doubled that amount of practice. Also do they consider film as practice when determining the 20 hours? Because we had film every day. I agree it would be possible to get a 15 hour a week job, but there are a few questions as to would employers hire such a limited worker, how would that effect academics and would the coaches allow it.

There you go, and it's entirely possible to find a job on campus for 15-20 hrs per week. I did it. Everyone I knew who needed money did it. All schools help their students get these jobs.

 

[imac_21]

Its a messed-up issue because obviously there are a lot of people making money on the backs of these players. But I don't see how you pay them, because I don't know how you justify paying a football player but not a volleyball or water polo player.

This isn't meant as a shot at you space, so please don't take it that way. It's something that's been on my mind for quite awhile with this issue, and your comment above is the most on point I've seen to bring it up. Your point is a common one, and it seems to be very much against the principles of what America was founded on and what a significant percentage of Americans today believe. Basically, the above issue seems to address communism rather than capitalism. If the football program is more profitable than the water polo program, why should those that "work" in each program be compensated equally? Are there calls at Alabama to pay the water polo coach the same amount as Nick Saban? "The American way" (and admittedly, this is a gross simplification, I don't intend to offend anyone) is that the market shall dictate value. Many people who comment on the issue of compensating college athletes believe in the idea that the market dictates value in all cases except college athletics. It seems that there are many people who hate the idea of socialized medicine and everyone having access to equal health care because they don't feel they should have to support the poor and needy, but say paying college athletes doesn't work because Johnny Manziel should be compensated equally to a backup on the Whitworth College Water Polo team. It seems hypocritical.

Again, not accusing anyone here of taking any of the above stances. It's just something I've noticed, mostly in the media ,and space's comment above seemed like a good opening to address it. I apologize if anyone takes offense at what I said above. It wasn't my intent.

Now, you could say that the football players have a greater time requirement, but you could also say the school is basically subsidizing their training and auditions for the pro level. Of course that only applies to the top-notch talent, but in general its the top notch talent that is putting in crazy hours and is unable to get a job on the side. Someone like Arian Foster had an institution that not only gave him a free education, but use of training facilities, coaches, staff and support to prepare him for a lucrative career, that has to count for something.

Isn't this the goal of universities though? Can't we consider Arian Foster to have gone to University to essentially "major in football?" Doesn't the school provide the same training, facilities and staff to someone who has gone to major in business or education? And if that business major warrants it, the university will give him (or her) a scholarship and therefore a free education as well.

On a side note, this is why I don't have any issue with players leaving school early. Anthony Davis, for example, went to Rutgers to major in football. He essentially "graduated early" as he was a top 10 pick in the draft, is a key member of one of the best "companies" in his field, and is making millions. Why should he have to finish his "real" degree, when he wanted to major in football? Sure, sometimes these guys washout who "graduate early." But there are busts who do 4 years of university, and there are "busts" in law, business, medicine, education etc as well.

[quote[Players who are getting scholarships and room and board are getting a good return for their time spent. Any player that is going hungry (or hungrier than the average college student, I should say) might not be in the right place, if you can't maintain even minimal support for yourself it hard to expect others to do it for you. I would say the schools and NCAA should probably use the (obscene) profits to make sure any medical issues acquired while playing sports are taken care of after the players are gone. Its complex, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't see how you can give them cash.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the NCAA makes it remarkably difficult for them to maintain minimal support. Going back to Dez Bryant, he was suspended for a season because he lied about going to Deion Sanders' house. Why did he lie about it? Because he was afraid that going to the house of someone serving as a mentor was violation of NCAA rules and he would be suspended simply for going to Deion's house. That's a huge flaw in the system. I'm fine with not paying-student athletes, there are many issues that would need to be worked through (I don't consider that a good excuse not to look into it), but the NCAA should not restrict student-athlete's ability to make money.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Times may have changed. I went to school YEARS ago and we had to sign a document saying all our research was owned by the university, not the inventors. They controlled the IP and profited from it. We didn't get jack.

I guess it varies from place to place. I recently read a book on the history of Genentech, and the advances that started that company were developed at UCSF in the 70s......and then the researchers immediately left and started one of the most profitable companies in history. I think that particular situation led some schools to get more serious about getting their share of the profits for stuff they helped develop.

 

[imac_21]

my school was not a division 1 program but the "system" they had wasn't exactly rocket science either.

I'm sure the major football programs offer similar plans if not BETTER due to the higher establishment it is.

I'm not saying Dodub is wrong at all, I'm listening to what he said, all schools are different. How long ago was he playing? All schools are different.

We students had a cash system which we put into at any point of the year and with this "school-cash" we were allowed to purchase(on campus or any outlets in coherence) food, products, equipments, books, etc.. nothing different than using straight cash but something I couldn't believe the big football programs couldn't set up for their student athletes.

My issue comes with what is in bold. I'm sure the student-athletes at most, if not all, schools have something similar to what you are talking about. However, the idea that the NCAA, through the school (it's important to remember it's the NCAA, not the school, setting the restrictions. The school's restrictions are based on what the NCAA will and wont' allow), can determine where you can spend your money is asinine.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Fair enough Imac, and I basically agree with everything you said. This stuff is just off the top of my head, not well thought-out or considered. Its a fair point that football brings in the dough, so they'd get more, but its just one of many issues of fairness that would be involved here. Take Title 9 stuff for instance, with its spending mandates for men and womens' sports - it is a total denial of reality.....but given that they use that type of equality-driven rule, I think you'd have a tough time even giving football players the lion's share, let alone certain players getting more.

 

[imac_21]

that's what kills me... I think so too.

And because of this, that scholarship is worth a lot less to JaDaveon Clowney then it was to Bruce Smith. For a couple key reasons.

First, if Clowney was not a scholarship athlete, but a walk on (I believe this is what tomickon is suggesting in his posts about "blue chip walk ons"), and had to take student loans to pay for his education, the way NFL salaries have increased he would have that paid off in no time. This could open up a system where the elite players walk on and take student aid rather than take scholarship (the argument being the scholarships can be used on "B" or "C" level prospects who may not have a career in the NFL, but can help the team win).

The other issue is that because in today's world, at least in Canada and the USA, post-secondary education is almost expected now. I'm in my early 30s, and when I was growing up going to university, in my mind, was an expected part of the education process. I believe I'm in the first generation of people who had that expectation of post secondary ed. There has been two generations of post-sec students since me (considering a post-sec generation to be ~5 years). As a highschool teacher, I can say that it is very much expected of the vast majority of students to go onto post-sec once they graduate. This is the case at my school despite it being a lower income, rural school in a community where a lot of the parents work in the trades (many trades are starting to require some post sec as well).

From here it comes down to supply and demand. The market is being flooded with young adults with post-sec degrees. It's reached the point where the supply greatly outnumbers the demand and people with 4 year degrees are taking minimum wage jobs in the service sector that they are overqualified for because there are not jobs available in their field.

This greatly devalues that "free education" that student-athletes get. We can't look at the cost of the degree in terms of tuition, books, board etc. We have to look at the value of the degree in the real world once they have completed school. The simple fact is that a college degree is WORTH significantly less in 2013 than it was in 1993, despite it costing significantly more.

You could argue that being a football player gives these guys an advantage in the "real world" with their degree if they stay local, because some business and companies will be willing to hire a "celebrity" in an attempt to increase business even if he is the lesser of the candidates. But this would only apply to college athletes who did something noteworthy. If you were a guard, or a backup you won't get that benefit.

Sorry for all the tangents I've been going on throughout this thread. I just find this topic to be pretty fascinating.