I'll start off by saying that my viewpoint has recently changed. I was of the school of thought that an education was and is plenty valuable (just ask those of us with student loans). That Ohio St, USC, Texas, Bama, etc have been filling up stadia for a century. And that the exposure and name recognition that elite football and basketball players have, even if they are not successful in the pros, has some value that can be monetized.
What has recently changed my opinion simply stated are the "Rights" of the individuals, and it appears that a convicted murderer has more than a college athlete. For some, the apex of their popularity & marketability are in college and they are forbidden from benefitting from that. Furthermore, their scholarship isn't guaranteed, and if there are chronic ailments stemming from college, they are told by good ole alma mater.. not our problem.
I think the major legal resistance will come in form of Title IX but Jim Delany is on record as saying they'll drop schollies and go to need based aid and I could see the big conferences going to that model. Throw in the ability to work, get a % of jerseys and such, sign with agents, do endorsements, and you've got a full blown plan to pay athletes. The biggest most controversial part would be a cut of TV money as is being requested by O'Bannon, that would encourage better athletes to go to places that could better monetize their value and the rich would just get richer. I think what kept me willfully blind for so long was that I thought the non revenues would get hammered and in all liklihood all things held constant except revenue sports athletes getting paid that money will get siphoned from the non revenues. But my love for the non revenues (especially wrestling) doesn't justify the rights of the revenue athletes being usurped.

(03-30-2014 12:50 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  I'll start off by saying that my viewpoint has recently changed. I was of the school of thought that an education was and is plenty valuable (just ask those of us with student loans). That Ohio St, USC, Texas, Bama, etc have been filling up stadia for a century. And that the exposure and name recognition that elite football and basketball players have, even if they are not successful in the pros, has some value that can be monetized.
What has recently changed my opinion simply stated are the "Rights" of the individuals, and it appears that a convicted murderer has more than a college athlete. For some, the apex of their popularity & marketability are in college and they are forbidden from benefitting from that. Furthermore, their scholarship isn't guaranteed, and if there are chronic ailments stemming from college, they are told by good ole alma mater.. not our problem.
I think the major legal resistance will come in form of Title IX but Jim Delany is on record as saying they'll drop schollies and go to need based aid and I could see the big conferences going to that model. Throw in the ability to work, get a % of jerseys and such, sign with agents, do endorsements, and you've got a full blown plan to pay athletes. The biggest most controversial part would be a cut of TV money as is being requested by O'Bannon, that would encourage better athletes to go to places that could better monetize their value and the rich would just get richer. I think what kept me willfully blind for so long was that I thought the non revenues would get hammered and in all liklihood all things held constant except revenue sports athletes getting paid that money will get siphoned from the non revenues. But my love for the non revenues (especially wrestling) doesn't justify the rights of the revenue athletes being usurped.

What exactly is your viewpoint?

My viewpoint is that the system the NCAA has put in place, that no student athletes had a voice in creating, does in fact exploit the rights of the revenue producing sports athletes. That being said, O'Bannon and the Northwestern football players should be commended for challenging the system so that their rights may be upheld.

Let's face it: O'Bannon wouldn't have sued had he had a successful and lucrative NBA career.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-30-2014 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: O'Bannon wouldn't have sued had he had a successful and lucrative NBA career.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I was thinking the same thing.

(03-30-2014 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: O'Bannon wouldn't have sued had he had a successful and lucrative NBA career.

Ah yes...the high road. Who cares if he's right?

They are killing the golden goose. I don't think they really understand the long-term implications of this. As soon as they are no longer considered students everything about the system is gone. How can you enforce eligibility if they are employees? What about 4 years to play? What about age restrictions? The ability to go pro? Agent interactions? They are employees and therefore not really subject to the NCAA rules.

Also expect this to kill all the other non-revenue sports. If there is pay requirement and if there is still Title IX, how do find the funds to provide equal compensation..

All of this is going to destroy what they have and will drive college sports to a defacto minor leagues with no real tie to the school. That will kill the funding and fan interest. Go look at the NBADL and all teh failed other football leagues.

(03-30-2014 04:20 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  They are killing the golden goose. I don't think they really understand the long-term implications of this. As soon as they are no longer considered students everything about the system is gone. How can you enforce eligibility if they are employees? What about 4 years to play? What about age restrictions? The ability to go pro? Agent interactions? They are employees and therefore not really subject to the NCAA rules.

Also expect this to kill all the other non-revenue sports. If there is pay requirement and if there is still Title IX, how do find the funds to provide equal compensation..

All of this is going to destroy what they have and will drive college sports to a defacto minor leagues with no real tie to the school. That will kill the funding and fan interest. Go look at the NBADL and all teh failed other football leagues.

+1. It's all very shortsighted. Right now people watch college football because it's different than NFL football. Few people watch minor league games though. They didn't watch the XFL, they didn't watch NFL Europe. And they won't watch colleges' attempts at minor league football. And the non-revenue sports will be killed in the process, along with the United States' proficiency in Olympic sports.

I remember O'Bannon from UCLA way back when but did He play in the NBA? They must have overpaid Him because I and many others I know couldn't tell You 1 NBA Team He played for.

It is a losing battle. College football will become the equivalent of AAA baseball. A few AAA players make 40k-ish. A few more get bonuses from the MLB teams. The rank and file AAA player doesn't get that kind of money.

(03-30-2014 07:33 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I remember O'Bannon from UCLA way back when but did He play in the NBA? They must have overpaid Him because I and many others I know couldn't tell You 1 NBA Team He played for.

I want to say he played for Nets or Pistons. His brother played in the NBA as well so I could be getting them mixed up.

(03-30-2014 01:33 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  My viewpoint is that the system the NCAA has put in place, that no student athletes had a voice in creating, does in fact exploit the rights of the revenue producing sports athletes. That being said, O'Bannon and the Northwestern football players should be commended for challenging the system so that their rights may be upheld.

Do we feel the same way for women's soccer players?
If football or bball players make any real money playing college sports many fans will go elsewhere. The O'Bannon suit is much different than NW union deal.
NW or any private school isn't going to play ball with The United Steelworkers, who paid the legal bill for Colter at NW.

(03-31-2014 05:51 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 01:33 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  My viewpoint is that the system the NCAA has put in place, that no student athletes had a voice in creating, does in fact exploit the rights of the revenue producing sports athletes. That being said, O'Bannon and the Northwestern football players should be commended for challenging the system so that their rights may be upheld.

Do we feel the same way for women's soccer players?
If football or bball players make any real money playing college sports many fans will go elsewhere. The O'Bannon suit is much different than NW union deal.
NW or any private school isn't going to play ball with The United Steelworkers, who paid the legal bill for Colter at NW.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...o-unionize

(03-31-2014 05:51 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 01:33 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  My viewpoint is that the system the NCAA has put in place, that no student athletes had a voice in creating, does in fact exploit the rights of the revenue producing sports athletes. That being said, O'Bannon and the Northwestern football players should be commended for challenging the system so that their rights may be upheld.

Do we feel the same way for women's soccer players?
If football or bball players make any real money playing college sports many fans will go elsewhere. The O'Bannon suit is much different than NW union deal.
NW or any private school isn't going to play ball with The United Steelworkers, who paid the legal bill for Colter at NW.

The NCAA has some stupid, unfair rules, but other than a handful of players at 80 to 100 schools in football and men's basketball who go pro, it is a great thing for college athletes.

F*ck O'bannon - he has taken away my favorite video game franchises. We all get to suffer because his pro career did not pan out...how is it our fault that he did not take his education seriously?

I also think that there are some tweaks that can and should be made for these athletes, but I scarcely think that they're "exploited" and get nothing in return. They get:

1. Tuition, room and board, and focused tutoring. Let's face it, most of these kids won't go pro in their sport, so a degree is important. Even if they get ushered through the system with cushy courses and get a little "help" in getting the needed grades, there are a lot of jobs out there for which having a college degree is a minimum requirement.

2. Specific to their sport, they get (particularly at the "factories" that are most accused of "exploitation") practice and training by highly qualified coaches.

3. Specific to their sport, they get physical training from qualified coaches, and access to very well-equipped weight facilities, massage and other therapies, and nutrition that is geared toward improving performance.

4. Specific to their sport, they get the opportunity to compete against other high-level athletes. This provides multiple benefits - first of all, it's a feedback loop to assist coaches in training. Second, it's an avenue to showcase their skills to pro scouts.

5. They get a stage on which to build a brand. For those lucky and skilled enough to get to the next level, it means that Gatorade or Nike already has them on their radar. For those who aren't that lucky, it's a chance to make a name for themselves that can be handy with employers who are big fans of Ol' State U, who remember that Johnny caught a big touchdown pass against rival State U. Sure, Johnny couldn't make it to the next level, but when he sends in his resume (if he even has to do so, rather than having a call made on his behalf) it can get him in the door for an interview in a time when it's often not what you know, but who you know that counts.

The money that flows from revenue-generating sports also subsidizes non-revenue sports. Since it would be "unfair" (particularly in Title IX instances) to insist that those sports support themselves, here's where the university gets the money to fly the volleyball team cross-country. While many facilities are also funded at least in part by private donations, all that cash also comes in handy to build the fancy athletic dorms and sports facilities that top-level recruits factor into their decisions on where to go to school.

Should there be changes? Yes - I would have no issues with small stipends to allow kids to bypass the training table to go out for a pizza once in a while, and I deplore running off kids who do what they're asked but just aren't good enough to compete and get run off after a year or so. But I think that these athletes do already get a lot in return for playing a sport for 4 years, and the notion of big-time exploitation is something that's also been largely built up by people who want to get their hands on a piece of the pie.

The problem is people look at coach getting $4 million and player getting tuition, fees, housing, meals, books, and personalized tutoring and think, wait, why do the people who generate the wealth get so little of it?

The first problem with that thinking is that the players are a much smaller part of the equation than people want to think. Did TAMU sell a lot of Manziel jerseys? Of course but most of those sales are a part of the brand building TAMU has done developing a fan base. Most likely a huge majority of those buyers were purchasing TAMU merchandise before he entered high school. The purchasers connection to the school brand was the bigger sales factor and if he had transferred to Austin to play there would be little overlap in jersey purchases unlike in the NBA where there is a large segment of people who follow a favorite player and will change team alliance when he changes teams unlike college fans who follow a favorite team and then develop interest in favorite players but will not only not follow that player if he changes college teams, will strongly dislike that player.

People also want to throw the "non-revenue" sports out of the equation but if you want to play FBS you have to sponsor 16 sports and award 200 grants-in-aid. It is a cost of doing business. It's cheaper to run a chemical plant if you don't have to comply with pollution regulations but you've got to do it.

Federal law requires offering proportional opportunity to females.

So Alabama awards around 260 grants-in-aid to comply with the regulatory environment. So player costs start out at $6.3 million for Bama and that's before Bama starts spending any money to provide with tutoring or other academic help.

The system is far from perfect but it is not nearly as unfair to players as many would like to claim.