The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-29-2014 11:01 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Ok, so if we don't want to give them cash, why not give them all the things that "full cost of living" is supposed to cover? Why not cover their laundry services? Why not arrange for their travel home X weekends out of an academic term? Why not give them a cell phone?

I think there are ways to achieve what they are trying to achieve without putting an overwhelming financial burden on non-BCS schools, which is what paying $2000 or whatever to every athlete would do.

This summer our conference C-USA actually made a proposal to do so.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/athletes...a-proposal

(01-29-2014 10:39 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:35 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  If athletes were allowed to make money off of their name, I suspect there would be an added advantage for them to score 30 points versus dishing the ball off to a teammate.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

(they would act like professional athletes, like the NBA for instance)

(personal goals over team goals)

Don't think it would happen?

We already have one doing this without the benefit of extra money incentives.

And what if these players aren't performing up to par?

Can we just release them anytime then without any second thought?

After all, we are paying for these extra benefits, better make sure we maximize our profits to handle it.

And why not just go ahead & work a side deal between the player & Nike?
After all, both sides win in the arrangement don't they?

Who cares if your teammate drives new cars why you have to wash them to earn money?

(01-29-2014 11:16 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:39 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:35 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  If athletes were allowed to make money off of their name, I suspect there would be an added advantage for them to score 30 points versus dishing the ball off to a teammate.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

(they would act like professional athletes, like the NBA for instance)

(personal goals over team goals)

Don't think it would happen?

We already have one doing this without the benefit of extra money incentives.

You have admitted that you are not an NBA fan so you really can't say that is true. Yes, some players are about themselves, just like in college, but most in the NBA are about accomplishing goals as a team.

And your swipe at a UAB player is uncalled for. If it wasn't for him, we would have lost a lot more games.

(01-29-2014 11:24 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  And what if these players aren't performing up to par?

Can we just release them anytime then without any second thought?

Coaches can do that now, with one year renewable scholarships.

The point is that some players would become more self-centered which is not good for the college game.

Differences in pay between the players would not be good.

There are a lot of athletes that benefit from scholarships & use those scholarships to help them out after they are finished with school.

Incorporating this would lead to hundreds & hundreds of athletes not receiving scholarships due to the added extra costs needed to maintain a program.

Think about the college athletics version of raising the minimum wage.

(01-29-2014 11:28 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:24 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  And what if these players aren't performing up to par?

Can we just release them anytime then without any second thought?

Coaches can do that now, with one year renewable scholarships.

But some professional athletes can be terminated or released anytime.

As pointed out above, this whole issue began with the $15 per month "laundry money" when university football tickets cost $5 (student tix cost $1, if not free) and coaches made what a school's deans made.

Today we have universities exacting premiums of thousands to have the chance to pay $70 and more for individual game tickets, coaches who make millions (even some assistants make $1 million+ now) so that each home game against even the weakest of teams produce many millions for the athletic program. This is the travesty that has given rise to the present movement to try to create some balance for the players who are the main cast of characters in the "plays".

Yes, the players can have scholarships by which the Athletic Department pays tuition, room, board and books TO THE UNIVERSITY in the name of the student-athlete on an annual basis. Not one dime is handed over to the athlete in cash. This arrangement can be cancelled by the staff at any time before the fall semester begins.

A steadily increasing demand has been placed on these athletes to make better grades and to progress toward a degree (APR rules) based upon past transgressions by coaches and boosters who have now made it impossible (under NCAA rules) for the S-A to take any part-time job in order to have "pocket money". Not all players have the family wealth to have regular money sent from home. The debate is over the best way to find a middle ground to provide some walking around money for kids who help the schools make millions every week during their season of play.

If the answer was an easy one, we would not be having this prolonged discussion.

(01-29-2014 11:32 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  The point is that some players would become more self-centered which is not good for the college game.

Differences in pay between the players would not be good.

There are a lot of athletes that benefit from scholarships & use those scholarships to help them out after they are finished with school.

Incorporating this would lead to hundreds & hundreds of athletes not receiving scholarships due to the added extra costs needed to maintain a program.

Think about the college athletics version of raising the minimum wage.

I never said anything about taking their scholarships. What I suggested wouldn't cost the schools anything extra. Allowing someone to receive income based on their fame is the decent thing to do. But schools are against it because if the player is benefitting from the fame, it means the school doesn't get to ride their back and profit off their fame.

You seem to have a mistaken idea of what college athletics are. There is no more amateurism, especially at the BCS level. Top stars are already self-centered and seeking their payday.

Allow the players to get paid. Nothing really changes in college athletes than the way it is now.

I believe the walking around money part of it can be done without any type of union.
Also, only 2 dozen schools at most break even.

If players don't have money to wash clothes or get home then I certainly believe it should be the school's responsibility to meet those needs as part of the scholarship.

(01-29-2014 11:40 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I believe the walking around money part of it can be done without any type of union.
Also, only 2 dozen schools at most break even.

If players don't have money to wash clothes or get home then I certainly believe it should be the school's responsibility to meet those needs as part of the scholarship.

Since Athletic Departments don't usually maintain public transparency about how much they take in and how they spend their money, it is not likely we can know why so few "break even" with all the money they take in. They become very creative in order to avoid having to surrender any more than they have to to their school's administration. Locker room waterfalls and such luxury items are testimony to this at more than a few schools.

The so called union is just one idea that has been brought forward, perhaps in an effort to get some action on a less controversial plan.

(01-29-2014 09:32 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  To be clear, I don't think athletes should be paid by the schools. Title iX makes that a tricky situation. However, I do think that athletes should be allowed to earn money based on their celebrity. They should be allowed to capitalize on their fame, just as the schools are allowed to.

I agree with you in principle, but it would be a slippery slope, else generous "fans" (a/k/a deep-pocketed boosters) of certain schools would suddenly start paying their favorite players thousands of dollars for their autograph, sweaty jersey, etc.

(01-30-2014 06:35 AM)BlazerGrad88 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:32 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  To be clear, I don't think athletes should be paid by the schools. Title iX makes that a tricky situation. However, I do think that athletes should be allowed to earn money based on their celebrity. They should be allowed to capitalize on their fame, just as the schools are allowed to.

I agree with you in principle, but it would be a slippery slope, else generous "fans" (a/k/a deep-pocketed boosters) of certain schools would suddenly start paying their favorite players thousands of dollars for their autograph, sweaty jersey, etc.

You mean, like now.

Now if they get caught there are at least *some* consequences. Take the lid off and see what happens.

Yep, you wouldn't need to think about who the national champion in football would be, I think it pretty much would be paid for up front.

Nothing would change. The same teams competing for national champs now would be then.

How much does a school's Athletic Department at AU OR UA have to spend EVERY YEAR in order to average $200,000 per athlete per year? That was the 2011 figure for each BCS state university from the Delta Cost Project quoted by Scarbo in a recent column.

The MEDIAN SEC school (from the same DCP for 2010) spent $164,000 per athlete (#1 in America) which was $35,000 more than the #2 conference's (Big-12) median school spent per athlete. That is the level of financial competition the "peasant conferences" are up against in trying to build their programs toward national recognition.


Is it a wonder so few programs are "in the black" with that kind of spending going on?

(01-30-2014 01:17 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  How much does a school's Athletic Department at AU OR UA have to spend EVERY YEAR in order to average $200,000 per athlete per year? That was the 2011 figure for each BCS state university from the Delta Cost Project quoted by Scarbo in a recent column.

The MEDIAN SEC school (from the same DCP for 2010) spent $164,000 per athlete (#1 in America) which was $35,000 more than the #2 conference's (Big-12) median school spent per athlete. That is the level of financial competition the "peasant conferences" are up against in trying to build their programs toward national recognition.


Is it a wonder so few programs are "in the black" with that kind of spending going on?

Did you even start out thinking this was on topic?

I'd always heard it costs employers 2.5 to 3 times your salary to employ you.

That's the fundamental question at the heart of this.

Are they amateur student-athletes, or are they university employees?