College Athlete Compensation

[Irish7478]

It would be for all FBS schools. If a school thought they couldn't afford it they could drop down a level. But pencil it out; it's not that expensive for schools taking in millions and millions of dollars.

I forgot to include one more thing. The new rules would only be in force for up to 5 sports at each school. No more. It could be for less if the school wanted but not for more than 5 sports. Since we're stuck with all the Title IX bullshit each school would have to include at least 1 (probably more) women's sport to be safe. All schools would probably pick football and most schools would pick men's basketball. Some schools might pick baseball. Others might pick wrestling or track. A fair number of schools would pick women's softball and women's basketball. It would allow a school to control it's own destiny to a great degree. No one would be forced to pick any particular sport other than the peer pressure of wanting to field competitive teams in sports they emphasized. All other sports would have the same rules as now except improved food service for all scholarship players and walkons.

Yes, many schools take in millions off of sports, but they also pay millions in expenses. Several business publications show that only 20-25 of the 120 BCS schools make a profit in athletics. And of the 300 or so division 1 basketball programs, the percentage showing a profit is even less. Only being able to pick 5 sports would also mean a huge recruiting advantage for the schools that pick the specific sports. Lacrosse, hockey, track, soccer, baseball, wrestling, and everything else would just be a competition amond the 15-20 schools that happen to pick those sports. And I think you're wrong on title IX only mandating 1 sport for women to get paid. With a limit of 5, you'd be looking at each BCS program designating 3 men's sports for payments.

 

[Goldbug]

Yes, many schools take in millions off of sports, but they also pay millions in expenses. Several business publications show that only 20-25 of the 120 BCS schools make a profit in athletics. And of the 300 or so division 1 basketball programs, the percentage showing a profit is even less. Only being able to pick 5 sports would also mean a huge recruiting advantage for the schools that pick the specific sports. Lacrosse, hockey, track, soccer, baseball, wrestling, and everything else would just be a competition amond the 15-20 schools that happen to pick those sports. And I think you're wrong on title IX only mandating 1 sport for women to get paid. With a limit of 5, you'd be looking at each BCS program designating 3 men's sports for payments.

Fuck any school too poor to pay the pittance I am suggesting. It would only be for 5 sports.....OK 6 or 8 if you absolutely have to treat the girls the same since the Title IX lovers think everything has to be 50/50. 3 or 4 men's sports/3 or 4 women's sports. I don't give a damn about any school that's pulling in millions of dollars every year and still can't "afford to play sports". Then drop sports. I'm sick of the socialists in this country trying to mandate equality. Some people are more successful for a reason. Some schools are more successful in a particular sport for a reason. Pay the players something, make it reasonable and make it a choice for each school to pick the sports they want to emphasize. If Ryder Truck Driving Academy can't afford to field a football team that can compete with Oklahoma and Notre Dame then they can field one that can compete with Colorado State and Rutgers. If that's too much then let them drop the football program or get out of the FBS. Again: fuck socialism. I want exceptional people and exceptional schools to be able to excel if they have the fortitude and dedication to achieving excellence. Oklahoma finds a way to compete successfully against Texas and they have facilities that God would have if He had the money.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Union vote is on April 25th...wonder IF we'll ever see those results with the NorWest higher ups vowing to go all the way norte to the SCOTUS et al.

Gives the NCAA time to try and figure a way out of this mess they created...unilaterally that is.

 

[bamafan4evr12]

Getting a free education is enough for them. Mom and dad can give them money monthly if they want since they're not footing the bill for college.

Simply put, paying college players is a bad idea.

 

[trojanfan12]

Getting a free education is enough for them. Mom and dad can give them money monthly if they want since they're not footing the bill for college.

Simply put, paying college players is a bad idea.

Yeah, after all, ALL of these players come from families who aren't poor and can afford to send them money every month.

 

[JDM]

Yeah, after all, ALL of these players come from families who aren't poor and can afford to send them money every month.

Then they should be grateful for the opportunity they're getting just because they can run fast.

 

[trojanfan12]

Then they should be grateful for the opportunity they're getting just because they can run fast.

I don't disagree. But let's not pretend all of their families can just afford to send them money every month. That's idiotic.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Getting a free education is enough for them. Mom and dad can give them money monthly if they want since they're not footing the bill for college.

Simply put, paying college players is a bad idea.

So is paying for a developmental league for all the pro teams to reap, is that why the NCAA is still around?

 

[JDM]

I don't disagree. But let's not pretend all of their families can just afford to send them money every month. That's idiotic.

I'm not saying that that's realistic. It isn't. And as is there's risk that an injury bankrupts the kids and they're families as the current system works, and that's broken. Any injury that occurs while in the program should be covered for life.


But stipends, spending money, etc? No. You know none of those kids have to pay for anything anyways.

 

[xpuctaqpGT]

I've said it before. I say it again. The colleges don't need to pay the kids. But the NCAA needs to get rid of the restrictions on the kids making money on their own. Let them sign autographs for money. Or endorse the local Pizzaria. Or whatever.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Does ANYONE think FAT CAT Emmert and/or the colleges themselves would be able to give up any sizable slice of the TV revenue pie and all it brings now?

Be like trying to wean a lifelong crack addict into sobriety who just won a 60 mil lottery.

 

[4down20]

I don't disagree. But let's not pretend all of their families can just afford to send them money every month. That's idiotic.

Those who fall into that category still qualify for things like grants and other financial aid things.

 

[occupant]

...and you think we pay too much for tickets now...

 

[TexasExes98]

Those who fall into that category still qualify for things like grants and other financial aid things.

Exactly.......they can receive over $17K in cash every year. Basically receiving over $1400 a month which is plenty for a college student and they don't have to pay it back. No need to pay them. Again, if they choose to spend their stipend money on a tattoo or some weed (which is very, very common), then that's their problem.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Collective bargaining...oooohhhhh, such a terrible string of words to even think about let alone achieve.


Save the poor lil' victim in all of this...Universities, the NCAA and the highest paid "current employees" of said Institutions...the coaches.


But no worries, NorWest and their coach have been hard at work trying to brainwash their student/athletes into believing "staus quo" is good right now...

Document reveals Northwestern's anti-union dialogue with players - CBSSports.com

5 Things Northwestern Is Telling Other Football Schools About Unions - Washington Wire - WSJ

Start here and go from there....


NCAA NorthWestern player union vote - Google Search

 

[TexasExes98]

Collective bargaining...oooohhhhh, such a terrible string of words to even think about let alone achieve.


Save the poor lil' victim in all of this...Universities, the NCAA and the highest paid "current employees" of said Institutions...the coaches.


But no worries, NorWest and their coach have been hard at work trying to brainwash their student/athletes into believing "staus quo" is good right now...

Document reveals Northwestern's anti-union dialogue with players - CBSSports.com

5 Things Northwestern Is Telling Other Football Schools About Unions - Washington Wire - WSJ

Start here and go from there....


ONce again Wallace, these STUDENT/ATHLETE football players already receive free tuition, room/board, a monthly stipend and a per diem when they travel. They receive free clothing, shoes, eat better than the regular students, stay in 4 diamond hotels when they travel, etc, etc. This can average around $150K just for one scholarship. At a private university like N'Western, that scholly averages around $230K.

Now, you can say "well, they're not really there to study", which is fine and if that's the case, then they do not need to accept the scholarship and just train to get NFL ready when they turn 21. On the other hand, I don't mind paying them, but there has to be stipulations. They must sign a contract to stay in school all 4-5 years, maintain a 2.5 GPA and cannot get arrested. If they breach the contract by declaring early for the NFL, then they forfeit their signing bonus to the university. If their GPA is below a 2.5, their pay is forfeited until they bring their grades up. If they get arrested, then their pay is cancelled. But let's all be honest, paying these guys will bring nothing but trouble. Now they can go out more and party at bars and they can buy more drugs; THIS WILL HAPPEN.

 

[trojanfan12]

I'm not saying that that's realistic. It isn't. And as is there's risk that an injury bankrupts the kids and they're families as the current system works, and that's broken. Any injury that occurs while in the program should be covered for life.


But stipends, spending money, etc? No. You know none of those kids have to pay for anything anyways.

My feeling on paying the players is that if a way can be found that is fair and doesn't open a can of worms that leads to ever increasing amounts of money being paid to them or doesn't open the door for possible massive abuse of the system, then I'm all for it.

I just haven't seen that system yet. On Dan Patrick this morning, he was interviewing Emmert and (using Manziel as his example) suggested holding the money in "escrow" for just the couple of kids or so that are generating the kind of revenue for the school that Manziel did for aTm.

I found myself coming up with about 5 reasons why that's a bad idea without even trying.

I agree about injuries that happen while at the school being covered for life. Especially if it's a kid who isn't going to be a professional athlete.

 

[TexasExes98]

My feeling on paying the players is that if a way can be found that is fair and doesn't open a can of worms that leads to ever increasing amounts of money being paid to them or doesn't open the door for possible massive abuse of the system, then I'm all for it.

I just haven't seen that system yet. On Dan Patrick this morning, he was interviewing Emmert and (using Manziel as his example) suggested holding the money in "escrow" for just the couple of kids or so that are generating the kind of revenue for the school that Manziel did for aTm.

I found myself coming up with about 5 reasons why that's a bad idea without even trying.

I agree about injuries that happen while at the school being covered for life. Especially if it's a kid who isn't going to be a professional athlete.

Imagine the shit storm that would happen within the team if you only paid 2 players and not the rest of the team, although I do agree with your logic on that aspect.

 

[trojanfan12]

Imagine the shit storm that would happen within the team if you only paid 2 players and not the rest of the team, although I do agree with your logic on that aspect.

That was the 1st thing that popped into my head when he said that. Along with, how do you decide how much?, etc.

Using USC as an example: Suppose USC said to the NCAA "we are going to pay Matt Barkley and Marqise Lee. The vast majority of our jersey and t-shirt sales are #7 and #9 and they are our Heisman candidates".

Okay, do they get paid the same amount? If one is getting paid more than the other, how is that determined? What about the stud o-lineman who may get drafted higher than either Barkley or Lee, but no one is buying his jersey?

What about the running back or defensive player who is having a great season and now wants to be paid? Do you tell him "keep up the good work and we'll pay you next year"?

Don't even want to get into the recruiting aspect and now having to show recruits how much the guy ahead of him made in his time at the school.

 

[Irish7478]

If they vote to unionize, and then the majority decide it was a bad idea, they are screwed. There will be no going back.