(08-25-2015 03:05 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:55 PM)qsilvr2531 Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:36 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Why is the alternative to this problem paying the players? So the players would get a pay check for 4 years and then graduate with a useless degree? What good does that do?

It seems to me that the teams should be restricted from practicing so often so the players can make the most of their education and eventually make money for a life time as opposed to the few years they play football. But, I guess the NCAA would never do that because people are already in fear that they control the game too much as it is.

Paying the players wouldn't help them. A College education, when taken seriously, can be a extraordinarily useful. If they have problems getting to the classes that are neccesary to be successful thereafter, make it possible for them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

They already are restricted from practicing so often to allow players to make the most of their education. The end result is that the players are required to participate in non-mandatory practices where they don't get supervision from the coaches. So they are still required to practice (because if they don't they will lose their scholarship for lack of performance) and they don't gain the advantage of the expert level coaching that comes with playing at a high level of athletics (at least not full-time). And you get stupid crap where there are administrators at each university that exist entirely to determine how many countable contact hours student athlete's have.

Money can be pretty useful as well. I mean, I'm a big fan of my college education and I got paid to get it for a large portion of it, but if someone had offered to pay me more I wouldn't have said "that's not going to help me." Acting like not paying the athletes is for their own good doesn't make much sense to me, especially since there is absolutely no plan anywhere from anyone that reduces the amount of athletic responsibility for student athletes. Nor is that someone student athletes really want.

I still don't see how this problem can't be fixed. It makes sense that teams are going through loopholes to build in some extra practice time - they do it in High School atheltics as well - but that doesn't mean the situation is completely hopeless. And yes, I agree, money for a few short years would indeed be nice to have. And when treated properly, can also be a very nice asset to one's future. However, I would not argue that 4 years of financial compensation is any more beneficial than a meaningful College Education.

Now, I admit, I am biased. My path is leading me towards medicine, where years of strenuous education are rewarded with excellent jobs. Nonetheless, we have to think of alternative solutions than simply stuffing some money in the players pockets.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

We have to? Or you'd prefer that we do? Because we are stuffing tons of money in coaches pockets and they seem to be ok with it.

I would argue that it depends on the mount of financial compensation provided over the 4 years. Because a college education is something that can be purchased.

Given the amount of money involved, I am doubtful that there is a solution that will create less pressure to be extremely competitive in football and thus shift the incentive towards making it easier for athletes to take advantage of their educational opportunities. Just looking at the differences between athletes in revenue sports versus non-revenue sports suggests that it will be impossible to fix this issue at the college level. Looking at the way things work at the olympic level and any other high revenue "amatuer" model of competition pretty much shows that the solutions you are looking for don't really exist. But I totally agree, we should keep looking for them. I just think we should probably shift some of the compensation to the athletes (rather than the coaches and other administrators) until we come up with that solution.

You are correct in thay regard. It's unlikely that anyone would ever agree to actually reduce the competitive nature of college football to benefit the players. That being said, I don't think paying the players would ever solve these problems. Even as a temporary solution.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

(08-25-2015 03:22 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  You are correct in thay regard. It's unlikely that anyone would ever agree to actually reduce the competitive nature of college football to benefit the players. That being said, I don't think paying the players would ever solve these problems. Even as a temporary solution.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Paying the players has nothing to do with education or lack thereof the players receive. It's meant to cover the costs of living associated with college that are not covered by scholarship because players are unable for the most part to get jobs that cover these costs.

VT's Bud Foster said they he'd consider fining players from their COA money for rules violations and such yesterday. He walked that back and Whit Babcock shot down the idea immediately.

Just heard on the radio that Tuberville is considering fines for rules violation, poor academic performance, etc.. Bohn and other in the AD seem to be supportive of Tuberville's stance.

Discuss.

I get what they're trying to do, but it doesn't make sense to use scholarship money as punishment.

They're giving these kids this money because they supposedly would have to pay out of pocket for living expenses without it. It's not fair to then turn around and ask for some of their living expense money because they messed something up.

I don't think there's any way this legally comes to fruition.

Plenty of kids on academic scholarships have to uphold certain standards to maintain them... I don't have a huge issue with this provided it is for clear violations of code of conduct and isn't arbitrary in its application as COA is basically a really really awesome scholarship.

(08-27-2015 12:54 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Plenty of kids on academic scholarships have to uphold certain standards to maintain them... I don't have a huge issue with this provided it is for clear violations of code of conduct and isn't arbitrary in its application as COA is basically a really really awesome scholarship.

Agreed. But it's not like they drug test kids on academic scholarship. Don't they drug test scholarship athletes?

If they going to apply the tests and penalties fairly across all students, then it might have a chance.

All the ways they can discipline players--make them run extra laps, make do community service, sit them, suspend them, etc., etc.--and they come up with fines? This is not only moronic, it's unseemly for a sport that already looks to many like it takes advantage of these players.

They are getting both scholarships and this extra money in return for fulfilling their duties to the football team.

If they fail to fulfill their duties, I have no trouble with their stipend being reduced.

Not all of life is a government job. Sometimes you have consequences for your actions.

EDIT: Nevermind. TT already walked it back...not for fines....this is now proposed just for paying parking tickets and other student account expenses.

It will be back once the media stops paying attention. Someone like Ohio State or Alabama will go first, and everyone will think it is a great idea.

Quote:NCAA compensation rules for college athletes violate antitrust law, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday in a case brought by athletes seeking a slice of the billions of dollars universities reap from football and basketball.

The case came amid mounting public pressure for colleges to give athletes better benefits. A California federal judge last year had ruled against the NCAA, and said it should allow schools to pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in compensation.

Critics say the NCAA's scholarship policy short-changes athletes who risk injury and devote many hours to practice sessions, travel and competition. The majority of college athletes do not go on to play professionally.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NCAA must permit schools to provide student-athletes sums covering up to their cost of attendance. However, it reversed the lower court's order providing for $5,000 per year.

In a statement, NCAA president Mark Emmert said the association has allowed schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance since Aug. 1, and does not think that should be mandated by the courts.

An attorney for the athletes could not immediately be reached for comment.

More than 20 current and former athletes filed an antitrust class action against the NCAA. The NCAA says it is defending amateurism in college sports.

Broadcasters including Walt Disney Co and CBS Corp have rallied behind the NCAA, arguing in court filings that the idea each participant in a team sporting event has an individual right of publicity, which entitles them to compensation, "is simply wrong."

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Steve Ginsburg; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Marguerita Choy)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ncaa...lp00000592