(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:23 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  so that $87,280 in Tuition & Fees and Room & Board that a football player at A&M gets during his eligibility, do you charge him for that if he's going to profit off of his place on the team or does he get to keep that too?

Signed,

An un-athletic college graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and a job that doesn't pay 7 figures right out of school who could care less about a future millionaire's money problems as a student.

Don't drink Jim Delany's Kool-Aid on this topic.

Manziel is obviously not going to TAMU to get a degree. The tuition and fees thus don't have value to him like they do to real students. As for room & board, again, the only reason he is in College Station is because of his (technically non-paying) job as an Aggie football player. He's essentially an employee whose living expenses are being paid by his company so that he can live near where his company wants him to work.

He's not an employee, he's a student athlete. He's given free room and board and a quality education in exchange for representing the school on one of its athletic teams. If he doesn't like it he can go get a real job somewhere else.

They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:23 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  so that $87,280 in Tuition & Fees and Room & Board that a football player at A&M gets during his eligibility, do you charge him for that if he's going to profit off of his place on the team or does he get to keep that too?

Signed,

An un-athletic college graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and a job that doesn't pay 7 figures right out of school who could care less about a future millionaire's money problems as a student.

Don't drink Jim Delany's Kool-Aid on this topic.

Manziel is obviously not going to TAMU to get a degree. The tuition and fees thus don't have value to him like they do to real students. As for room & board, again, the only reason he is in College Station is because of his (technically non-paying) job as an Aggie football player. He's essentially an employee whose living expenses are being paid by his company so that he can live near where his company wants him to work.

He's not an employee, he's a student athlete. He's given free room and board and a quality education in exchange for representing the school on one of its athletic teams. If he doesn't like it he can go get a real job somewhere else.

They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

(08-08-2013 11:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Don't drink Jim Delany's Kool-Aid on this topic.

Manziel is obviously not going to TAMU to get a degree. The tuition and fees thus don't have value to him like they do to real students. As for room & board, again, the only reason he is in College Station is because of his (technically non-paying) job as an Aggie football player. He's essentially an employee whose living expenses are being paid by his company so that he can live near where his company wants him to work.

He's not an employee, he's a student athlete. He's given free room and board and a quality education in exchange for representing the school on one of its athletic teams. If he doesn't like it he can go get a real job somewhere else.

They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

(08-08-2013 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  He's not an employee, he's a student athlete. He's given free room and board and a quality education in exchange for representing the school on one of its athletic teams. If he doesn't like it he can go get a real job somewhere else.

They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

why give them free tuition and room & board?

(08-08-2013 01:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

why give them free tuition and room & board?

Exactly, pay them but then charge them for attending the school like every other student.

(08-08-2013 01:40 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

why give them free tuition and room & board?

Exactly, pay them but then charge them for attending the school like every other student.

That's what Disney World does with their college interns.

(08-08-2013 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:40 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

why give them free tuition and room & board?

Exactly, pay them but then charge them for attending the school like every other student.

That's what Disney World does with their college interns.

A very apt comparison, IMHO. But one that the Jim Delanys and Larry Scotts of the world are unlikely to embrace.

(08-08-2013 01:36 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:36 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  They could easily fix everything by switching from student athlete to intern and there would be no need to pay them. Like the real business world where they give experience instead of pay. No one would question then if they did then it is something that would affects a whole lot of companies that look for free labor out of college kids.

Then the market would decide whether and how much the "interns" get paid. Schools with booster money to burn would quickly figure out that they'll get better "interns" if they pay them. And they wouldn't have to pay them all the same amount. All-American defensive ends get paid well and benefit from bidding wars. Punters are unpaid interns. One-and-done hoops stars get paid above board and don't have to pretend to be students for a semester.

If it is stated that it is a non paid internship they could still keep the rules against being paid by outside sources. Even could make it academic in nature by requiring a gpa to continue with the athletic internship. Which would still make them go to class and actually try.

Why keep a ban on being paid by outside sources? That would be just like keeping the phony student-athlete label they have now.

why give them free tuition and room & board?

If they are interns and not students, they don't *need* free tuition, do they. Joe OneAndDone has no interest in being a student; he's just using the school as a waystation on his path to the NBA draft.

But a school could offer free tuition and room and board as a perk if they choose to, just as many universities offer free tuition to the children of faculty and staff. Obviously, a school that offers at least free room and board to its "interns" is going to have a recruiting edge over schools that charge athletes for their own room and board.

(08-07-2013 05:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  If we consider Manziel an "employee" (which I do not), that actually works against Bilas' implied point that the players are being taken for an unfair advantage by the NCAA. Because if players are employees, then for the employer to license their names/images (or to allow 3rd-parties to do so) is simply part of the employment contract.

9 times out of 10, if you worked for a company and in addition they sold your likeness and profited off of it, you would be entitled to a cut. NFL athletes are paid to play football, for example. However when the Green Bay Packers sell Aaron Rodgers jerseys, they can't just say "well we already pay you to quarterback, so we don't have to pay you to sell your likeness on clothing." They have to pay him again and have a set agreement to do spelling out the terms. Otherwise they cannot sell his rights.

So it's not an apt comparison.