Sorry if this should be OT, since this is the off season and it is about college sports, I thought i could put this on the main board.

Listening to espn radio at work. Leabotard is talking to someone about paying NCAA athletes. They are comparing it to African dictators, how the people in charge get all the money while the producers aren't getting anything.

I have a very hard time seeing it this way. If the NCAA is committing such gross injustices against these poor snow flakes, then why the hell don't they take their talents elsewhere? Isn't that the beauty of the free market? Aren't there are other professional leagues available (in America and overseas)? Maybe they don't pay the best now, but if more athletes go this route, I'm sure interest would increase.

The truth of the matter is NCAA athletes are getting a great deal out of playing for Alabama Football or Duke Basketball, etc. They are getting tons of exposure, $100,000 educations, free room and board, etc. For the superstars they are building their brands in college. Even for the players that won't be playing in the NFL or NBA, they are building a profile for their future. Look at former Bearcats like Gino Guigduli, Terry Nelson, Erik Martin. None of them made it to to major professional leagues, but they now have careers because of their college playing days.

I am sure there will be people who disagree with me. But the reason people love college sports is because of the amateurism. There are plenty of professional leagues. Why do we need to make one more?

(04-14-2016 12:44 PM)jarr Wrote:  I am sure there will be people who disagree with me. But the reason people love college sports is because of the amateurism. There are plenty of professional leagues. Why do we need to make one more?

I agree totally. I realize this probably sounds naïve, but I actually believe in the concept of a "student athlete".

On the other hand, I realize that there is a huge time commitment required of the students to play something like football and that makes it hard to work a job. I have no problem with their scholarship including a stipend to cover the cost of housing, food and a reasonable amount of spending money.

How about if a team plays really poorly they pay the poor fans who come and have to watch it?

I honestly don't care if they're paid or not paid, but man people are bad at analogies. That comment about African dictators was so stupid it made me want to never pay anyone ever.

I have come to the point where I ***could*** see athletics in terms of "Work-Study." Many students work a job at a college or university for pay. Services are rendered, compensation is given.

The trouble I have with it is the phenomenon of "double dipping." A student on an athletic scholarship IS already being compensated in the form of tuition, fees, and other privileges like food, etc... A student on an academic scholarship may also work a "work-study" job, but that is in addition to, and apart from, the scholarship itself. To pay a student for the same thing ON TOP OF the compensation of the scholarship itself is a privilege that nobody else receives.

On the whole aspect of the fees a university gets for marketing a player's name or likeness, I do think that players should have recompense or royalties for that. It may have to be held in escrow, but that is the sort of thing a player should get benefits from.

I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

(04-14-2016 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

He had enough money for the tats up and down his arms.

(04-14-2016 02:06 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

He had enough money for the tats up and down his arms.

LOL BAM.....and agree 100%

I don't feel sorry for that kid.

(04-14-2016 02:06 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

He had enough money for the tats up and down his arms.

And the surprisingly inexpensive lease he had on the BMW he drove around Hartford.

I just don't understand it, if athletes stay on campus, they get a free apartment and free meal plan...it's not a hard choice.

(04-14-2016 03:02 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:06 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

He had enough money for the tats up and down his arms.

And the surprisingly inexpensive lease he had on the BMW he drove around Hartford.

I just don't understand it, if athletes stay on campus, they get a free apartment and free meal plan...it's not a hard choice.

They get the financial equivalent of housing and food if they live off campus. If that is $3000 per semester they would receive a check for that amount the first week of the semester. Then they move in together with as many players under one roof as they can possibly squeeze in. More money for tats less money for rent.

Many 18-22 year olds are not the best at making and following a budget. Consequently they are out of money by the end of the semester. Between the room and board money and the Pell grant money, these guys receive a very large check every semester. If they cannot stop themselves from spending it, they have no one to blame but themselves.

All I'm seeing in this thread is jealousy.

No problem with them paying players. Just don't complain that you don't have money for incidentals when you overspend what money they have you. And that is what happened at UCONN.

I'm against playing players because I think the vast majority of players are interchangable money wise. It's the university that draws fans to the college game. I think there are exceptions, but those players could make money somewhere playing if that is their goal. If their goal is to play in the highest professional leagues they are getting great experience, with great coaching and doing so while getting a free education, room, board, etc. I'm not opposed to higher stipends as it's hard for these guys to have jobs for extra money, but I think the value of the education and professional training they get is itself a great reward.

That said, I agree that some of the restrictions on student athletes are stupid and a player than can make money off his likeness should be able to (or anything else he wants to sell). I think the NCAA should require reporting of any income off likeness or what they sell to combat shady booster stuff, but to me if a players name has real value then they should be able to profit off it.

(04-14-2016 04:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I'm against playing players because I think the vast majority of players are interchangable money wise. It's the university that draws fans to the college game. I think there are exceptions, but those players could make money somewhere playing if that is their goal. If their goal is to play in the highest professional leagues they are getting great experience, with great coaching and doing so while getting a free education, room, board, etc. I'm not opposed to higher stipends as it's hard for these guys to have jobs for extra money, but I think the value of the education and professional training they get is itself a great reward.

That said, I agree that some of the restrictions on student athletes are stupid and a player than can make money off his likeness should be able to (or anything else he wants to sell). I think the NCAA should require reporting of any income off likeness or what they sell to combat shady booster stuff, but to me if a players name has real value then they should be able to profit off it.

I still feel that is setting up a slippery slope. You don't think coaches like Harbaugh and Calipari won't take those new laws and bend them as far as they can? Once you start allowing that stuff, bigger schools with more money and marketing power will even dominate more. Look at a guy like Tebow. He is making plenty of money based almost all from his days and likeness at Florida. I just feel, if you don't like the rules then dont go to college. The NBA and NFL are all about prompting their stars, but the NCAA should be promoting it's schools and programs.

(04-14-2016 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:55 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  I've said it before on this board, but I lived with football players (and was friends with many others) and they always had a lot more money to spend than I did. Enough for them to eat out for every meal and buy whatever beer they wanted to drink whatever night of the week they wanted to drink it. I was cooking Ramen or hot dogs on the Foreman grill and drinking Keystone and those guys never bought a grocery during their college years. I don't feel too bad for them.

Pretty much my experience as well. I remember a couple years ago it was either Napier or Boatright who was complaining that he often went to bed starving. Had to wonder how in the world that was possible given what the players have available to them based on my own experiences (and I am sure a player at UConn in 2011/2012 than they did back in the early 90s).

Yes no money for food but thousands for Tats? GMAFB

The fact is that at most high-revenue sport schools, the "student athletes" are already paid in a variety of formats:

1. Easy classes
2. For difficult classes, other students test for them
3. Perks, often directly from donors
4. A degree, often free of charge, for reasons noted above
5. A fast track to professional sports

This allows them to dedicate the lion's share of their time to practice and playing their chosen sport, thus making a farce of the whole idea of "student athlete". Now that the NCAA has attempted to pay players outright for expenses, the handwriting is on the wall for those schools that won't (or can't) do 1-5 listed above...their programs will be unable to win a significant number of games against those schools which will compensate their athletes. Thus, these institutions will have to re-evaluate their priorities.

I think this problem would largely go away if professional sports didn't require players to go to college prior to entering the draft. The people who are vocal about this obviously don't care about the value of their education or are smart enough to figure that out.

(04-14-2016 12:44 PM)jarr Wrote:  Sorry if this should be OT, since this is the off season and it is about college sports, I thought i could put this on the main board.

Listening to espn radio at work. Leabotard is talking to someone about paying NCAA athletes. They are comparing it to African dictators, how the people in charge get all the money while the producers aren't getting anything.

I have a very hard time seeing it this way. If the NCAA is committing such gross injustices against these poor snow flakes, then why the hell don't they take their talents elsewhere? Isn't that the beauty of the free market? Aren't there are other professional leagues available (in America and overseas)? Maybe they don't pay the best now, but if more athletes go this route, I'm sure interest would increase.

The truth of the matter is NCAA athletes are getting a great deal out of playing for Alabama Football or Duke Basketball, etc. They are getting tons of exposure, $100,000 educations, free room and board, etc. For the superstars they are building their brands in college. Even for the players that won't be playing in the NFL or NBA, they are building a profile for their future. Look at former Bearcats like Gino Guigduli, Terry Nelson, Erik Martin. None of them made it to to major professional leagues, but they now have careers because of their college playing days.

I am sure there will be people who disagree with me. But the reason people love college sports is because of the amateurism. There are plenty of professional leagues. Why do we need to make one more?

if the NCAA ever authorized schools to pay the athletes, you can rest assured that if they set a limit on paying each athlete something like $5,000 a year, that the Kentucky, Duke, North Carolinas will be paying 100,000 to some. Let's keep it the same as it is. Free tuition, lodging and books. They seem to do fine with the Pell Grant monies. How many of them now sport arm fulls of tatoos. Those weren't cheap. Some drive some pretty fancy cars too.

Players wouldn't choose the NCAA route if it was a bad choice for them.

I really don't understand the argument that some colleges should be "allowed" to go without paying players and others shouldn't. Who is going to decide that the Big Ten MUST pay players and the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference (D-3) doesn't have to pay? They're both using athletics for the exact same purpose - part advertising, part providing entertainment for the student body, and part for the educational aspects of competition.