(10-29-2014 08:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:40 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 10:11 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I still don't see how a school could give that to every student athlete enrolled. That's just way too much money.

Well, they won't. It will likely be parsed as the scholarships are. Football, basketball, and a few baseball scholarships are full. Those athletes will get the 10,000. Most baseball scholarships are 1/2 scholarships. I bet they wind up with 5,000. The other not for profit sports will likely wind up subsidized by corporate donations through the U.S. Olympic Committee. A stronger partnership between the U.S.O.C. and the N.C.A.A. might be a very wise move legally at this juncture.

All I see here is the death of college athletics as we know it. Let the players do endorsements, make commercials, sell their name or whatever, but put it on them. That is the way the Olympic athletes make it work. This system would allow the athletes to make some money without being paid to play football. No more of these silly NCAA violations regarding selling your own signature, etc. College sports is at a major crossroads here. They are on the verge of canning a century old process. This must be done, whatever they decide, with great care.

I don't disagree with you here Medic, but what I think the issue really is "full cost of attendance" scholarships. The stipend is supposed to cover that. When my last daughter attended Auburn her annual tuition was about 9,000, but when you added books, meals, dorms, fees, transportation, etc, the total cost was closer to 24,000 per year (and that was just over a decade ago). So when the schools talk about stipends I think the public issue is one of perception. Stipend sounds like "pay". But I seriously doubt that 10,000 covers the difference of a full tuition scholarship versus the full cost of attendance at Texas, or really anywhere else.

Remember too, that thanks to Barry Switzer, the NCAA did away with athletic dorms. I can't begin to tell you the problems that ensued because of that single ruling. In the old days athletes got their meals, their lodging, and central access to their classes by living in an athletic dorm. They also got bed checks by assistant coaches, routine medical check ups by a visiting team physician, and the diet they received was balanced. Coaches got them to classes, to workouts, and to practice without the complications of off campus living. This meant no firearms, no drugs, no underage alcohol usage, and very little thuggery at most schools (because everything was monitored during the quarter or semester). The only way athletes got into enough to trouble to be booted was by either directly disobeying a coach during the term, or at home in the off season. But thanks to Switzer, not at Oklahoma where firearms, drugs, taking advantage of coeds, and other criminal or near criminal behavior was sheltered in the athletic dorm. So the result is that all coaches lost that privilege, all athletes lost those perks, and the courts put it off on Title 9 and not giving athletes privileges the common student couldn't receive. Now we've come full circle and instead of providing all of the above with a scholarship (which is what is really needed) and doing the same for women athletes, we are going to give them a check and that will probably get blown on all the wrong things. And that is how I see it.

I know scholarships do not cover cost of attendance, but isn't it that way with all full time students? How is this fair to them? Each week I watch these players on the fields and courts, showing off their $5000 tattoos... they must be doing better financially than I was in school. Maybe the athletes should at least perform some kind of work or service for the university. Cut grass, paint dorms, or whatever. They could find some way to work for the extra money. We did this in the military. They called it extra duty. JMHO.

Medic I don't disagree with one word you said. We once gave at the half scholarship level. When the athletes started getting treated like rock stars we quit. The attention is destroying many of them. Work would be a wonderful thing for them to actually have to do. It would actually teach most of them what making a living is about, because 90% of them are going to wind up back in the real world employment line, instead of the NFL.

(10-30-2014 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 08:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:40 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 10:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, they won't. It will likely be parsed as the scholarships are. Football, basketball, and a few baseball scholarships are full. Those athletes will get the 10,000. Most baseball scholarships are 1/2 scholarships. I bet they wind up with 5,000. The other not for profit sports will likely wind up subsidized by corporate donations through the U.S. Olympic Committee. A stronger partnership between the U.S.O.C. and the N.C.A.A. might be a very wise move legally at this juncture.

All I see here is the death of college athletics as we know it. Let the players do endorsements, make commercials, sell their name or whatever, but put it on them. That is the way the Olympic athletes make it work. This system would allow the athletes to make some money without being paid to play football. No more of these silly NCAA violations regarding selling your own signature, etc. College sports is at a major crossroads here. They are on the verge of canning a century old process. This must be done, whatever they decide, with great care.

I don't disagree with you here Medic, but what I think the issue really is "full cost of attendance" scholarships. The stipend is supposed to cover that. When my last daughter attended Auburn her annual tuition was about 9,000, but when you added books, meals, dorms, fees, transportation, etc, the total cost was closer to 24,000 per year (and that was just over a decade ago). So when the schools talk about stipends I think the public issue is one of perception. Stipend sounds like "pay". But I seriously doubt that 10,000 covers the difference of a full tuition scholarship versus the full cost of attendance at Texas, or really anywhere else.

Remember too, that thanks to Barry Switzer, the NCAA did away with athletic dorms. I can't begin to tell you the problems that ensued because of that single ruling. In the old days athletes got their meals, their lodging, and central access to their classes by living in an athletic dorm. They also got bed checks by assistant coaches, routine medical check ups by a visiting team physician, and the diet they received was balanced. Coaches got them to classes, to workouts, and to practice without the complications of off campus living. This meant no firearms, no drugs, no underage alcohol usage, and very little thuggery at most schools (because everything was monitored during the quarter or semester). The only way athletes got into enough to trouble to be booted was by either directly disobeying a coach during the term, or at home in the off season. But thanks to Switzer, not at Oklahoma where firearms, drugs, taking advantage of coeds, and other criminal or near criminal behavior was sheltered in the athletic dorm. So the result is that all coaches lost that privilege, all athletes lost those perks, and the courts put it off on Title 9 and not giving athletes privileges the common student couldn't receive. Now we've come full circle and instead of providing all of the above with a scholarship (which is what is really needed) and doing the same for women athletes, we are going to give them a check and that will probably get blown on all the wrong things. And that is how I see it.

I know scholarships do not cover cost of attendance, but isn't it that way with all full time students? How is this fair to them? Each week I watch these players on the fields and courts, showing off their $5000 tattoos... they must be doing better financially than I was in school. Maybe the athletes should at least perform some kind of work or service for the university. Cut grass, paint dorms, or whatever. They could find some way to work for the extra money. We did this in the military. They called it extra duty. JMHO.

Medic I don't disagree with one word you said. We once gave at the half scholarship level. When the athletes started getting treated like rock stars we quit. The attention is destroying many of them. Work would be a wonderful thing for them to actually have to do. It would actually teach most of them what making a living is about, because 90% of them are going to wind up back in the real world employment line, instead of the NFL.

Of course many athletes would have "paper" jobs, much like the "paper" classes they were taking at UNC. Seems like every plan to correct a given problem creates more problems. Sometimes I wonder if they will ever get this fixed to every ones' satisfaction.

(10-30-2014 01:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 08:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:40 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  All I see here is the death of college athletics as we know it. Let the players do endorsements, make commercials, sell their name or whatever, but put it on them. That is the way the Olympic athletes make it work. This system would allow the athletes to make some money without being paid to play football. No more of these silly NCAA violations regarding selling your own signature, etc. College sports is at a major crossroads here. They are on the verge of canning a century old process. This must be done, whatever they decide, with great care.

I don't disagree with you here Medic, but what I think the issue really is "full cost of attendance" scholarships. The stipend is supposed to cover that. When my last daughter attended Auburn her annual tuition was about 9,000, but when you added books, meals, dorms, fees, transportation, etc, the total cost was closer to 24,000 per year (and that was just over a decade ago). So when the schools talk about stipends I think the public issue is one of perception. Stipend sounds like "pay". But I seriously doubt that 10,000 covers the difference of a full tuition scholarship versus the full cost of attendance at Texas, or really anywhere else.

Remember too, that thanks to Barry Switzer, the NCAA did away with athletic dorms. I can't begin to tell you the problems that ensued because of that single ruling. In the old days athletes got their meals, their lodging, and central access to their classes by living in an athletic dorm. They also got bed checks by assistant coaches, routine medical check ups by a visiting team physician, and the diet they received was balanced. Coaches got them to classes, to workouts, and to practice without the complications of off campus living. This meant no firearms, no drugs, no underage alcohol usage, and very little thuggery at most schools (because everything was monitored during the quarter or semester). The only way athletes got into enough to trouble to be booted was by either directly disobeying a coach during the term, or at home in the off season. But thanks to Switzer, not at Oklahoma where firearms, drugs, taking advantage of coeds, and other criminal or near criminal behavior was sheltered in the athletic dorm. So the result is that all coaches lost that privilege, all athletes lost those perks, and the courts put it off on Title 9 and not giving athletes privileges the common student couldn't receive. Now we've come full circle and instead of providing all of the above with a scholarship (which is what is really needed) and doing the same for women athletes, we are going to give them a check and that will probably get blown on all the wrong things. And that is how I see it.

I know scholarships do not cover cost of attendance, but isn't it that way with all full time students? How is this fair to them? Each week I watch these players on the fields and courts, showing off their $5000 tattoos... they must be doing better financially than I was in school. Maybe the athletes should at least perform some kind of work or service for the university. Cut grass, paint dorms, or whatever. They could find some way to work for the extra money. We did this in the military. They called it extra duty. JMHO.

Medic I don't disagree with one word you said. We once gave at the half scholarship level. When the athletes started getting treated like rock stars we quit. The attention is destroying many of them. Work would be a wonderful thing for them to actually have to do. It would actually teach most of them what making a living is about, because 90% of them are going to wind up back in the real world employment line, instead of the NFL.

Of course many athletes would have "paper" jobs, much like the "paper" classes they were taking at UNC. Seems like every plan to correct a given problem creates more problems. Sometimes I wonder if they will ever get this fixed to every ones' satisfaction.

Medic, it's been the state of the world since Adam and Eve screwed up Eden.

(10-30-2014 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 01:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 03:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 08:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with you here Medic, but what I think the issue really is "full cost of attendance" scholarships. The stipend is supposed to cover that. When my last daughter attended Auburn her annual tuition was about 9,000, but when you added books, meals, dorms, fees, transportation, etc, the total cost was closer to 24,000 per year (and that was just over a decade ago). So when the schools talk about stipends I think the public issue is one of perception. Stipend sounds like "pay". But I seriously doubt that 10,000 covers the difference of a full tuition scholarship versus the full cost of attendance at Texas, or really anywhere else.

Remember too, that thanks to Barry Switzer, the NCAA did away with athletic dorms. I can't begin to tell you the problems that ensued because of that single ruling. In the old days athletes got their meals, their lodging, and central access to their classes by living in an athletic dorm. They also got bed checks by assistant coaches, routine medical check ups by a visiting team physician, and the diet they received was balanced. Coaches got them to classes, to workouts, and to practice without the complications of off campus living. This meant no firearms, no drugs, no underage alcohol usage, and very little thuggery at most schools (because everything was monitored during the quarter or semester). The only way athletes got into enough to trouble to be booted was by either directly disobeying a coach during the term, or at home in the off season. But thanks to Switzer, not at Oklahoma where firearms, drugs, taking advantage of coeds, and other criminal or near criminal behavior was sheltered in the athletic dorm. So the result is that all coaches lost that privilege, all athletes lost those perks, and the courts put it off on Title 9 and not giving athletes privileges the common student couldn't receive. Now we've come full circle and instead of providing all of the above with a scholarship (which is what is really needed) and doing the same for women athletes, we are going to give them a check and that will probably get blown on all the wrong things. And that is how I see it.

I know scholarships do not cover cost of attendance, but isn't it that way with all full time students? How is this fair to them? Each week I watch these players on the fields and courts, showing off their $5000 tattoos... they must be doing better financially than I was in school. Maybe the athletes should at least perform some kind of work or service for the university. Cut grass, paint dorms, or whatever. They could find some way to work for the extra money. We did this in the military. They called it extra duty. JMHO.

Medic I don't disagree with one word you said. We once gave at the half scholarship level. When the athletes started getting treated like rock stars we quit. The attention is destroying many of them. Work would be a wonderful thing for them to actually have to do. It would actually teach most of them what making a living is about, because 90% of them are going to wind up back in the real world employment line, instead of the NFL.

Of course many athletes would have "paper" jobs, much like the "paper" classes they were taking at UNC. Seems like every plan to correct a given problem creates more problems. Sometimes I wonder if they will ever get this fixed to every ones' satisfaction.

Medic, it's been the state of the world since Adam and Eve screwed up Eden.

Yep. I would like to ask those two what they were thinking. Some people never have enough. Wow... that includes today's college athletes.

(04-01-2014 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There are a lot of arguments that can be made for paying and for not paying players. I agree that this is not an area that unions should infiltrate, nor should the schools permit it.

However, 30 years ago I felt that the student athlete should have been treated as a quasi employee of the school in that then I thought that the scholarship should be a contract enforceable by both parties. The athlete owed 4 years of playing time to the school in exchange for their education and all of the expenses pertaining to the achievement of the education. Back then there were athletic dorms, with bed checks, tutors on site, 3 square meals prepared for the athletes' health and the dorms were usually centrally located on the campuses to the classes and practice facilities. In those days the athletes had an ombudsman from the athletic department to the University to handle issues that arose that were not covered by the support provided. It worked well until Barry Switzer trashed the concept by turning the athletic dorm into a combination bad fraternity house, no police zone complete with party girls.

The problems at Oklahoma led to the demise of on campus athletic dorms for the players. Because of that athletes today face many more challenges. They may have to live off campus (expensive) and that necessitates flexible travel (expensive) and means that they buy their own meals (expensive) and have to be self disciplined enough to make it all happen in routine (not likely for many 18 year olds) and the coaches have resorted to private surveillance to keep track of off campus players (expensive and shady at best).

Consequently the conditions for athletes have deteriorated and that is why I am sympathetic to most of the demands issued by the NW players. I don't think we need a basically political arm siphoning funds from schools on behalf of players. I do think we need a stronger obligation to provide the essentials for all athletes so that they can maximize their time at our schools. If they don't have a great aptitude for traditional education I think they need training in an athletic related field that will profit them later on. Degrees in training, therapy, coaching, public speaking and announcing, and others are all fields that could offer legitimate degrees that would be fallback positions for a failed on field career or for those who suffer career ending injuries. For those with academic aptitude the traditional courses would be fine. But it is time we quit pretending that all of our athletes are students and prepare them, as their skills make possible, for employment beyond sports. If we are about education we owe them that.

I can agree with all of the things demanded on behalf of the P5 schools as presented to the NCAA. The P5 are ready to make the changes that would have addressed the NW players demands. It's the NCAA that is the dinosaur that stands in the way of progress. It's the NCAA that needs to go. If not for the NCAA the NW players issues would have already been addressed and the O'Bannon issues as well. The problem here is not the sport, or our schools, it is a bureaucracy that has bankrolled almost 1 Billion dollars in endowments off the backs of our athletes and schools and which has outlived its usefulness for anything. But as a corporate entity it works hand in hand with the IOC and government and that is why it is sheltered. It exists because of how it siphons funds away from large schools for basketball in particular and gives smaller schools a disproportionate share (although a share dwarfed by what the NCAA keeps for itself). Since there are more smaller schools than larger ones it controls the votes. Even when voting strength is apportioned, it remains to the NCAA's advantage. In short it is a nightmare and a farce for the larger schools to contend with and if they are adverse then they may be targeted for rules infractions and we have all born witness to the arbitrary nature of their enforcement policies. So in that regard the gestapo of the NCAA is the Infractions Committee. Folks, it needs to go!

I see the Unions trying to gain access through NW as political oportunism. And while I'm not anti-union, it is an area they have no business poking their nose into. It is just a cash grab.

College sports itself is nothing but one giant cash grab.

I hope the workers (players) and the unions get their fair share of the giant cash grab.

I think the courts are going to force it on the universities. Just depends on how expensive it becomes for universities. Too much and universities might, for the most part, bail on scholarship sports. Too little and the athletes are still getting taken advantage of. Wonder where the final solution lands.

(11-04-2014 02:36 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I think the courts are going to force it on the universities. Just depends on how expensive it becomes for universities. Too much and universities might, for the most part, bail on scholarship sports. Too little and the athletes are still getting taken advantage of. Wonder where the final solution lands.

That is ultimately going to depend on what the revenue generating sports athletes want to do. I actually don't think they are looking for that much. In basketball, I think many are happy with the one and done system and would like to see the NCAA push back against the NBA increasing the standard to two years. For those that don't want to go to college, there are legit options in the NBADL or going overseas.

I also think baseball has a system that works as the minor leagues are viable option if you are looking to get paid.

Football is the one area where a paycheck option isn't available and the fact that you have to stay in schools three years mean you have to remain academically eligible. The system I would like to see implemented is that schools pick up insurance for football players, make all scholarships 4 years and allows students to come back if they have the grades. I personally don't think the schools need to be involved in handing of money, just loosen the NCAA restrictions to where cash received from bag men, boosters, autographs and $100 handshakes are no longer infractions.