arian foster

[imac_21]

Let's look at what student athletes receive from their schools:

- Free tuition
- Free books
- Free housing/no rent
- Free training/preparation for their careers
- Are constantly pampered and babysat by advisers and tutors.
- Get priority enrollment.
- No wait-lists for events/sessions/classes etc.
- Get allowances when they are on the road that they can spend on w/e they want.

and so many other smalls things that make their college lives infinitely more comfortable than a regular college student.

Now let's look at what colleges receive from athletics:
- Millions of dollars (tens of millions, hundreds of millions?) annually.

 

[imac_21]

Just like out in the world. You'd get paid by the value you bring to the job. If you are on the fencing team at Michigan you get paid a little, if you are on the football team there you get more.

Why does everyone feel the athletes on the fencing team at Michigan should be entitled to the same compensation as the football players (assuming salaries were to be issued to college athletes) but the same logic doesn't apply to the coaches? I don't see many people saying the coach of the UM Fencing Team should receive the same salary as Brady Hoke.

The only situation where Americans seem to really push for communist practices when it comes to paying student athletes.

 

[TobyTyler]

Now let's look at what colleges receive from athletics:
- Millions of dollars (tens of millions, hundreds of millions?) annually.

WHich is a good thing. It allows a lot of people to get an education, it provides jobs in the community as well as charitable endeavors. And universities are the main breeding ground for scientific and medical research. Sports allow them the money to do these things

 

[imac_21]

Then, in that case, let's stop calling them STUDENT athletes, since it looks like they already have a career, no?

Because people working at McDonald's already have a career, right? Someone going to Business School who is working the registers at Walmart 20 hours per week has his career already?

No one is saying that these guys should be making 150k per year (at least not to my knowledge). But there are too many stories of college athletes not being able to make ends meet to think that the compensation they receive is adequate.

And as I said earlier, the value of a college education is not worth what it used to be. The cost has gone up considerably, but the value has been flushed down the toilet. The value of this "free education" isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[imac_21]

And honestly, while I'm arguing AGAINST payments for student athletes right now, like I said in the beginning, I'm on the fence on this one. I want to see an actual blueprint for how the salaries would work. Everyone is always talking about how student athletes should be paid, but nobody answers how, when, and who.

And as I've said a few times, just because the solution isn't easy, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

Not having a fool proof (or even generally agreed upon) method for compensating them doesn't mean the status quo is okay.

I'm going to recycle my poverty example from earlier. Solving the problem of poverty is very complicated and no one seems have an answer. That isn't a good reason to not try to solve it.

 

[TobyTyler]

Because people working at McDonald's already have a career, right? Someone going to Business School who is working the registers at Walmart 20 hours per week has his career already?

No one is saying that these guys should be making 150k per year (at least not to my knowledge). But there are too many stories of college athletes not being able to make ends meet to think that the compensation they receive is adequate.

And as I said earlier, the value of a college education is not worth what it used to be. The cost has gone up considerably, but the value has been flushed down the toilet. The value of this "free education" isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

I'll throw out 500 dollars a month as something I would be OK with.

 

[NinerSickness]

College football is nothing like playing in a weekend softball league. How many softball leagues are "for profit?" Most softball leagues I'm familiar with charge a nominal registration fee to cover expenses (field rental, compensation for umpires, possibly equipment costs). The NCAA is a billion dollar industry, that makes much of its billions off the fame of its players.

But we weren't talking about the profitability of the respective industries; we were talking about the time players put into them.

D1 CFB players voluntarily sign up to play a game and know they aren't going to get paid for doing so. This doesn't deter anyone on planet earth from doing so if they're talented enough to play D1 CFB. They still have far more people fighting for those scholarships than there are scholarships available.

If you want to talk about the profitability of the NCAA, that's a different discussion. I think the NCAA is as corrupt an organization as it gets, but you can't compare it to Coca Cola because it's not a private industry. It's attached at the hip to colleges, which essentially makes it part of the government sector (because it includes state colleges). The government sector makes its own rules, and they are far more interested in funding their other superfluous non-academic activities (and employees that run those things) like women's lacrosse than giving even more compensation to CFB players than they're already getting.

 

[imac_21]

I'm sure 9/10 students are living in poverty counting their pocket change. I was. Everyone I knew was, student athlete or not. What about them?

They weren't legislated into it though. The NCAA ties the hands of its athletes greatly restricting the ways in which they can make money. These restrictions don't exist for students not involved in the NCAA. Arian Foster was a star at Tennessee. Apparently he was struggling quite a bit financially there, needing assistance from others to feed himself. He likely could have made money on his celebrity, either through paid appearances or signing autographs, or whatever to help himself. The NCAA rules, however, stated that if he were to sell his autograph, or use his status as a celebrity to make any money to support himself he would forfeit his eligibility and therefore his scholarship.

These restrictions don't exist on non-athletes in post-secondary institutions. The Manning Passing Academy could not have existed while Peyton was at Tennessee. At least, not if Peyton were making money. But the Cooper Manning Passing Academy could have existed while he was in college because he wasn't an NCAA athlete. Of course, if Peyton were to take money from it, and Cooper used Peyton's likeness to promote it while Peyton was at Tennessee, the NCAA would have been all over him.

We live in a society where athletes have celebrity, even in college for football and basketball players. Whether we agree that this is "right" or not is irrelevant. In theory, the United States is founded on capitalist, free market ideas from an economic standpoint. The economic ideologies of the USA is that a person should be able to make money off his or her name/likeness. That's why people like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears (and a laundry list of others) are able to be rich. Regardless of how we as individuals feel about this, it's the way the United States, and in many ways by Canada by proxy, operates economically.

The NCAA, however, has restricted the ability of celebrities that it itself markets and makes millions off to capitalize on their own individual celebrity whether through jobs or through gifts from "fans." This is the fundamental issue, and the reason that this ground swell for student athletes to receive salaries exists. If the NCAA didn't so greatly impair its athletes abilities to make money off their own celebrity, this drive for increased compensation wouldn't exist.

Instead what we see is a billion dollar company making money by marketing the Johnny Manziels and Jadaveon Clowneys while the individuals largely responsible for the success of the NCAA see essentially 0 returns on it.

Clowney et al would still be famous football players on their way to millions in the NFL without the NCAA. The NCAA would not be a billion dollar company without Clowney et al.

 

[imac_21]

Good post. I have to run now, but I will address it when I come back.

Alright, we can continue this later. I love good debate.

 

[imac_21]

You're basically arguing that the really, really, really, really, really good players who will probably be in the NFL one day (the celebrities) 95% of whom are already making money off their celebrity in secret (let's be honest) should be able to make money doing things that might take profits away from the NCAA. I'm not against that idea, but why the hell would the NCAA allow that when it would cost them money?

Why should the NCAA be allowed to restrict the earning power of these people? The NCAA is already feeling the backlash, as they've now stopped selling jerseys on their website (due to Bilas calling them out as hypocrites following the Manziel mess). It's not about whether the NCAA should be willing to allow it to happen. It's whether or not it should be allowed to prevent it. Not only is the NCAA allowed to prevent these guys from making money, but people argue that not only should they have the right to restrict it, but it's ethically right for the NCAA to restrict it.

What would the reaction be if the NFL suddenly decided that its players could no longer make money off anything outside of playing football and that their compensation for playing football was to be provided with the bare minimum standard of living. What would the public reaction be? Am I to accept that because these guys are in college that they deserve to have their marketability restricted?

Why should I support a system that is so clearly communist?

Also, no D1 football players live in "poverty." They might not have a bunch of discretionary income, but they're not struggling to feed themselves or living on the street.

We're speaking in relative terms, I believe I said they live in essentially poverty, and when Arian Foster is talking about breaking the rules so that he can eat everyday, I would consider that to be living in essentially poverty (when the rules create a system where you can't eat every day, that seems like poverty to me).

 

[imac_21]

WHich is a good thing. It allows a lot of people to get an education, it provides jobs in the community as well as charitable endeavors. And universities are the main breeding ground for scientific and medical research. Sports allow them the money to do these things

Absolutely. I would never argue otherwise. But much of the scholarships that go to these student athletes are paid for through the athletic programs (with millions of dollars left over). It isn't as if athletics is bankrupting universities.

I think the NCAA owes its athletes a larger chunk of the pie, or needs to back off and allow them to make money on their celebrity as the market dictates.

 

[imac_21]

I'll throw out 500 dollars a month as something I would be OK with.

Yeah. $100 to $150 a week seems to be reasonable. We're not talking about 401K's and giving these guys enough disposable income to start driving German cars and taking risks in the stock market.

Give them enough so that they can eat every day and still be able to experience the college life that occurs away from the field/gym/pool whatever and the books. These guys should not be asked to choose between going out on a Thursday night with their friends and eating on Sunday just because they are good enough at a sport to get a scholarship

 

[NinerSickness]

Why should the NCAA be allowed to restrict the earning power of these people?

I don't think they "should" be able to (I think the NCAA is a huge cluster F***, but I also don't think CFB players are victims). Technically they can't "prevent" players from making money. They can't send the police over to arrest anyone. Johnny Manziel could quit CFB and sell his autographs for a living if he wanted to. But the NCAA can end its relationship with a player if he refuses to comply with policies. This is like how the NFL players can't be arrested for using PEDs, but the NFL can still suspend 'em for it.

What would the reaction be if the NFL suddenly decided that its players could no longer make money off anything outside of playing football and that their compensation for playing football was to be provided with the bare minimum standard of living.

The NFL can't "decide" to do that because they have a legally binding CBA. NFL players are employees not students, so they can collectively bargain with the NFL. Students have no say about the policies of the schools in which they attend (which is why I'm 100% against the government being directly involved in schools; they serve themselves rather than students). The NCAA = School policies.

So I don't really care if CFB players can make money or not. Nobody's forcing them to play CFB. They could just get student loans like most people in college do. If the NCAA wants to give them more compensation than they're getting now I'm fine with that. But I'm sure the Women's lacrosse coach isn't.

Why should I support a system that is so clearly communist?

Good question.

 

[imac_21]

But we weren't talking about the profitability of the respective industries; we were talking about the time players put into them.

Well I would challenge you to find a recreational softball league that requires 20 hours of team based work per week of on-field practice in addition to time in the weight room and film study.

D1 CFB players voluntarily sign up to play a game and know they aren't going to get paid for doing so. This doesn't deter anyone on planet earth from doing so if they're talented enough to play D1 CFB. They still have far more people fighting for those scholarships than there are scholarships available.

This is insane. Most people in the developed world choose their profession (or part time job in college nd HS). Does this mean they should never fight for improvements in compensation, whether its benefits or salary. Should players in the NFL not fight to have the salary cap increased because they knew it existed when they chose to join the league? Should factory workers in 19th century England not have fought for shortened workdays and basic health and safety measures because they chose to work there? Should we still be working 12 or 14 hour days in factories with no ventilation because people chose to do so 200 years ago? You can't argue "you knew what you were getting into, so accept it." Hell, I can turn that stance into a pro-slavery in America stance if I'm so inclined.

"Because that's the way it is" is probably the worst argument you can bring to any debate. It's a fantastic way to completely stop progress.

If you want to talk about the profitability of the NCAA, that's a different discussion. I think the NCAA is as corrupt an organization as it gets, but you can't compare it to Coca Cola because it's not a private industry. It's attached at the hip to colleges, which essentially makes it part of the government sector (because it includes state colleges). The government sector makes its own rules, and they are far more interested in funding their other superfluous non-academic activities (and employees that run those things) like women's lacrosse than giving even more compensation to CFB players than they're already getting.

I didn't compare coca cola to the NCAA. I compared a lemonade stand on the side of the road being run by two 10 year old girls to Coca Cola as an analog to your comparison of beer league softball to the NCAA. That being said, if Coca Cola was more interested in funding Powerade or Minute Maid or any other subdivisions of Coca Cola through the profits brought in strictly through sales of Coca Cola rather than compensate those that make Coke so successful, how would people react?

The NCAA exists because of Jadaveon Clowney, his peers, and those that came before him. Jadaveon Clowney does not exist because of the NCAA. The power is with the wrong group.

 

[NinerSickness]

Well I would challenge you to find a recreational softball league that requires 20 hours of team based work per week of on-field practice in addition to time in the weight room and film study.

They can't "require" students to do anything. They can quit the team if it prevents 'em from getting good grades or paying rent.

This is insane. Most people in the developed world choose their profession (or part time job in college nd HS). Does this mean they should never fight for improvements in compensation, whether its benefits or salary.

They should "fight" where they're being slighted and just work more / harder where they're being treated fairly. But like I said in the other post, CFB players aren't in a "profession." They're not employees. And I don't think CFB players are being slighted by any stretch of the imagination.

The NCAA exists because of Jadaveon Clowney, his peers, and those that came before him. Jadaveon Clowney does not exist because of the NCAA. The power is with the wrong group.

Ok, this part is not true. The NCAA would exist regardless (unless people just stopped going to college). And I agree the power is with the wrong group, but that group includes every student at the school; not just CFB players.

 

[imac_21]

I don't think they "should" be able to (I think the NCAA is a huge cluster F***, but I also don't think CFB players are victims). Technically they can't "prevent" players from making money. They can't send the police over to arrest anyone. Johnny Manziel could quit CFB and sell his autographs for a living if he wanted to. But the NCAA can end its relationship with a player if he refuses to comply with policies. This is like how the NFL players can't be arrested for using PEDs, but the NFL can still suspend 'em for it.

If you support the status quo, you essentially do think the NCAA "should" be able to restrict its athletes from making money. They can't prevent players from making money, but they can, and do, restrict it. And those restrictions do prevent players from making money off their celebrity. If the NCAA decided Manziel knowingly violated NCAA rules, they had the right to revoke his eligibility, which would lead to him losing his scholarship. Manziel's family is independently wealthy, so he likely completes his degree and goes about his life. But student-athletes without the family income don't have that option. The NCAA actively prevents its members from profiting off their celebrity.

The NFL can't "decide" to do that because they have a legally binding CBA. NFL players are employees not students, so they can collectively bargain with the NFL. Students have no say about the policies of the schools in which they attend (which is why I'm 100% against the government being directly involved in schools; they serve themselves rather than students). The NCAA = School policies.

An important distinction here is that it isn't school policies that create these problems. It's NCAA policies, and the NCAA =/= school policies. The NCAA has more power than the schools. I think it's safe to say that Arkansas would not have made Ryan Mallett sit a year when he transferred from Michigan if it wasn't NCAA policy. The schools hands are tied by the NCAA. I also can't speak for Universities which I didn't attend, but students absolutely had say in policies at my university.

Saying the NCAA = School policies is a dishonest simplification.

So I don't really care if CFB players can make money or not. Nobody's forcing them to play CFB. They could just get student loans like most people in college do. If the NCAA wants to give them more compensation than they're getting now I'm fine with that. But I'm sure the Women's lacrosse coach isn't.

This goes back to the point I made in my last post. "I don't care [about their situation] because nobody's forcing them to do it" is a BS argument that, if followed historically, would still have us working 14 hour days with no breaks, benefits or job security. It isn't like anyone was forced to work in the factories.

 

[imac_21]

They can't "require" students to do anything. They can quit the team if it prevents 'em from getting good grades or paying rent.

That you are restricted to arguing semantics and word choice I think speaks volumes for the position you are taking on this issue. Substitute "expected" for required. Find me a softball league that expects 20 (or more) hours of prep time per week of its members.

They should "fight" where they're being slighted and just work more / harder where they're being treated fairly. But like I said in the other post, CFB players aren't in a "profession." They're not employees. And I don't think CFB players are being slighted by any stretch of the imagination.

You're right. They aren't in a profession, and they're not employees. Instead their human commodities based on the treatment they receive. Because they chose to join the NCAA to participate in a sport they presumably love they have willingly forfeited some things that many would consider basic human rights. Like liberty. I suppose they could choose to pursue their happiness elsewhere, but if they want to do it in college athletics, they forfeit their liberty. I always thought it was life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness. I didn't realize it was an "or" statement.

I also find it interesting that you don't feel Arian Foster deserved to eat every day, "by any stretch of the imagination."

 

[TobyTyler]

Absolutely. I would never argue otherwise. But much of the scholarships that go to these student athletes are paid for through the athletic programs (with millions of dollars left over). It isn't as if athletics is bankrupting universities.

I think the NCAA owes its athletes a larger chunk of the pie, or needs to back off and allow them to make money on their celebrity as the market dictates.

Agreed. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

[NinerSickness]

If you support the status quo, you essentially do think the NCAA "should" be able to restrict its athletes from making money

I don't support them. But who's going to stop them? Schools make their own rules. They arbitrarily decide where that profit money goes. And a lot of colleges are subsidized, so competing with them for non-rich students is nearly impossible. (which is why private colleges go for the rich population). They arbitrarily decided that the women's lacrosse coach should get the money CFB makes, and students / fans can't do a thing about that.

They can't prevent players from making money, but they can, and do, restrict it.

No they can't! All they can do is end the relationship between the team & the player. If a player can ca$h in on his celebrity without the help of the NCAA he can just quit. But we're talking about future pro' players 99% of the time, so of course they're more interested in an NFL contract than in selling autographs.

An important distinction here is that it isn't school policies that create these problems. It's NCAA policies, and the NCAA =/= school policies.

So the school can't prevent a player from playing? The school can't set restrictions on what CFB players can do? The school can't give preferential treatment to CFB players like Clyde mentioned? You can't divorce the schools from the NCAA. They're all in bed together.

The NCAA has more power than the schools. I think it's safe to say that Arkansas would not have made Ryan Mallett sit a year when he transferred from Michigan if it wasn't NCAA policy.

But the NCAA is just a bunch of schools. Obviously 299 colleges have more power than 1 college. when it comes to policies. Just like 299 congressmen have more power than 1 congressman.

This goes back to the point I made in my last post. "I don't care [about their situation] because nobody's forcing them to do it" is a BS argument that, if followed historically, would still have us working 14 hour days with no breaks, benefits or job security. It isn't like anyone was forced to work in the factories.

Again, I'm following your logic all the way to the parking lot of a college, and then we part company because PLAYING COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS NOT A JOB.

 

[imac_21]

Agreed. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Is that not the American Way? That's what the country was built on, yes? That's why there was so much vitriol for the Eastern Bloc throughout the majority of the 20th century from the west, yes?