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

(05-18-2017 03:47 PM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  ok, if its not end of story what is your model for paying athletes? How do you get around the Title 9 issue and where does the money come from? Its all well and good idea but who pays for it? How do G5 programs already operating in the red afford it? I'm all ears. Like I said, I played a little over 5 years ago and I didn't need to be paid. I was well taken care of and lived a 40K lifestyle based on the value I was given. I was able to live in a 200k condo on southside, FOR FREE and graduated college with zero debt. If its such a raw deal why are kids still playing, why aren't they protesting college football? ive been debating this "hot topic" for 3 days now and nobody has given their model how it would work. They just say "athletes are getting taken advantage of and should be paid".

Your explanation itself raises questions about how you "lived a $40,000 lifestyle in a $200,000 condo on the southside and graduating debt free" without any mention of any outside funding is very extraordinary since an athletic scholarship provides no cash flow to the athlete. The money cited had to come from somewhere. NOTE: Disclosure - I graduated in 1963 debt free - except to my family who paid UA for my education.

As I mentioned above, the original idea was to provide student athletes with "walking around money" for dating, trips home and such minor costs. These modest ideas were "stonewalled" by the NCAA and its member schools. The more strident demands arose from there -- including court cases. The current publicity that a coach making $1 million doesn't even rank him in the top 20 in coaching pay has made the situation look even more unfair. AU and UA EACH operate a $100 million per year football business on unpaid labor, and many are OK with that.

my Football scholarship paid for my rent, which was enough to live in the condo. whats so hard to understand? For your walking around money issue, that has already been taken care of in 2014 cost of attendance stipend. Maybe you should keep up with what's already being provided. Don't you remember when Haase paid the stipend out of his pocket the first year because it hadn't been put in the fiscal year budget at uab then?

as for the 40,000 lifestyle. That is about the salary it would take to pay for all the things that was provided for free within the scholarship. Brand new nike clothes, rent, food, and what it cost to pay for tuition and books for both in and out of state students.

bring home money on 40,000 is about $2,250 per month. That's about what it would cost to pay rent, utilities, food, buy clothes, books, tuition, pay for tutors, etc. And honestly that might not even be enough to cover that lifestyle. Again, you should do research on what's actually provided for athletes right now.

For perspective -- $40,000 is more than the current full time individual American worker makes as the MEDIAN annual pay (that current figure is $38,000 per year with 50% making more and 50% making less).

(05-18-2017 04:38 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  For perspective -- $40,000 is more than the current full time individual American worker makes as the MEDIAN annual pay (that current figure is $38,000 per year with 50% making more and 50% making less).

precisely my point, the athletes are well taken care of. I'm speaking to you first hand. NOT to mention the cost of attendance stipend they get for "walking around, dating etc" which wasn't available when I was there. I'm giving you facts of what is provided for athletes. Unlike you, who is giving me what you think should be provided (when some of the things you say is already happening). I am all for the cost of attendance stipends by the way.

also in your mind, does every school give their players the same amount of money or even at all? Is it based on what the school can afford? Why should a program who operates in the red, pay their player even more that isn't making them money? Only a hand full of schools would be able to do this based on ROI of their athlete.

(05-18-2017 03:27 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 01:19 PM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 11:32 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 11:20 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 09:48 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  They would also get 1099s on every road trip..have fun keeping up with that at 18 years old.

This thing called the internet is quite magical.

It's also not how 1099s work, they'd get one at the end of the year not one after every road trip, and if they were employees they'd get a single W-2, not 1099s. 1099s are specifically for non-employees.

We were talking about contract basis..or at least I was from a previous post. We don't want to pay college athletes, end of story. UAB would shut down athletics before it did that.

Either way, that's how 1099's work. I do two contract jobs on the side and I get one 1099 for each at the end of the year. I do not get one singular paper copy that can't be found anywhere else ever.

And no, we don't want to pay college athletes, end of story isn't how this story ends. Not listening, or even being willing to debate hot topics in this country is a major issue in this country today.

How's this for not being able or willing to debate your hot topic?

(05-18-2017 04:46 PM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  also in your mind, does every school give their players the same amount of money or even at all? Is it based on what the school can afford? Why should a program who operates in the red, pay their player even more that isn't making them money? Only a hand full of schools would be able to do this based on ROI of their athlete.

That is why I asked in one of my earlier posts if anyone could cite a dollar figure for "cost of attendance"? I have seen the topic discussed but never mentioning a specific amount per athlete. If the 2 to 3 dozen programs that are the only ones operating "in the black" are the only ones that can spend freely, then it is no wonder they sign 20 out of every 25 from the top 300 lists and the rest are condemned forever to be "cannon fodder" for the few royals.

Haven't done this in a while,

But you can google it.

This is going to piss everyone off and probably kill the discussion, but I'd also take a second to reflect on a bunch of old white dudes arguing that a group made up of a significant number of black kids should work for free in an occupation that could kill them while their bosses are paid millions in salary

Its the way America works.

And some of the arguments for not paying players sound just like arguments made for not ending slavery before the Civil War.

1. The institution as we know it will change forever.
2. The small guy (farmer, school) won't be able to compete.
3. There got it pretty good already.

(05-19-2017 08:54 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  This is going to piss everyone off and probably kill the discussion, but I'd also take a second to reflect on a bunch of old white dudes arguing that a group made up of a significant number of black kids should work for free in an occupation that could kill them while their bosses are paid millions in salary

i am not black and I played, along with lots of other white athletes. also, this isn't a huge issue, you don't see the players unionizing that they are treated unfair or boycotting to play or simply not signing the scholarships do you?

(05-19-2017 10:56 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 08:54 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  This is going to piss everyone off and probably kill the discussion, but I'd also take a second to reflect on a bunch of old white dudes arguing that a group made up of a significant number of black kids should work for free in an occupation that could kill them while their bosses are paid millions in salary

i am not black and I played, along with lots of other white athletes. also, this isn't a huge issue, you don't see the players unionizing that they are treated unfair or boycotting to play or simply not signing the scholarships do you?

For the athlete it is simply that if you want to play college ball, you will sign the papers we offer. For many, it is the only way to get from where they are to where they desire to be one day. The great majority of all athletes make good use of that offered opportunity. BTW, has anyone ever seen a racial breakdown of the 30+% of scholarship athletes who are cut (or feel encouraged to transfer) by college football programs each year to get down to 85?

Race factors are really tangential to the process and only then because so many of the top athletes are "minority" students. They are not being recruited BECAUSE of their race. The "White men can't jump" stereotype has led to many of them being passed over by talent scouts. In numbers, there are more "poor whites" than "poor blacks" but poor has become for many a code word for racial identification, like "aborigine".

(05-19-2017 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 10:56 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 08:54 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  This is going to piss everyone off and probably kill the discussion, but I'd also take a second to reflect on a bunch of old white dudes arguing that a group made up of a significant number of black kids should work for free in an occupation that could kill them while their bosses are paid millions in salary

i am not black and I played, along with lots of other white athletes. also, this isn't a huge issue, you don't see the players unionizing that they are treated unfair or boycotting to play or simply not signing the scholarships do you?

For the athlete it is simply that if you want to play college ball, you will sign the papers we offer. For many, it is the only way to get from where they are to where they desire to be one day. The great majority of all athletes make good use of that offered opportunity. BTW, has anyone ever seen a racial breakdown of the 30+% of scholarship athletes who are cut (or feel encouraged to transfer) by college football programs each year to get down to 85?

Race factors are really tangential to the process and only then because so many of the top athletes are "minority" students. They are not being recruited BECAUSE of their race. The "White men can't jump" stereotype has led to many of them being passed over by talent scouts. In numbers, there are more "poor whites" than "poor blacks" but poor has become for many a code word for racial identification, like "aborigine".

30% of players are not cut. Many players leave on their own in many Sports. You cannot just look at numbers and determine what happened.

(05-19-2017 01:12 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 10:56 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 08:54 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  This is going to piss everyone off and probably kill the discussion, but I'd also take a second to reflect on a bunch of old white dudes arguing that a group made up of a significant number of black kids should work for free in an occupation that could kill them while their bosses are paid millions in salary

i am not black and I played, along with lots of other white athletes. also, this isn't a huge issue, you don't see the players unionizing that they are treated unfair or boycotting to play or simply not signing the scholarships do you?

For the athlete it is simply that if you want to play college ball, you will sign the papers we offer. For many, it is the only way to get from where they are to where they desire to be one day. The great majority of all athletes make good use of that offered opportunity. BTW, has anyone ever seen a racial breakdown of the 30+% of scholarship athletes who are cut (or feel encouraged to transfer) by college football programs each year to get down to 85?

Race factors are really tangential to the process and only then because so many of the top athletes are "minority" students. They are not being recruited BECAUSE of their race. The "White men can't jump" stereotype has led to many of them being passed over by talent scouts. In numbers, there are more "poor whites" than "poor blacks" but poor has become for many a code word for racial identification, like "aborigine".

30% of players are not cut. Many players leave on their own in many Sports. You cannot just look at numbers and determine what happened.

The football coaching staff begins weeding out from the beginning, but 25 X 5 = 125 and that is 40 more than they can keep on football scholarships. 40 is about 30% of the 125 that were signed. Scholarships are renewed annually, and a player may be dropped after year #1, year #2 or year #3 to make room for new talent - frosh or transfer.

Transfers get the most media attention, but the program must be down to 85 by the fall semester every season no matter the method of exit to get there. Some whose families can pay their way can stay on as walk-ons. Some can qualify for grants or loans just to stay in school. Some just have to leave school and try to get a job with their high school diploma.

None of those numbers make sense. 125 is inflated to start with. You can't just make **** up and say this is fact everywhere. Just because your beloved school does it doesn't mean everywhere does.

(05-21-2017 12:08 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  None of those numbers make sense. 125 is inflated to start with. You can't just make **** up and say this is fact everywhere. Just because your beloved school does it doesn't mean everywhere does.

In what school exactly does 5X25 not equal 125? ( A scholarship player has 5 years to play 4) In what school can the program keep more than 85 on scholarship each September? In which school does 40 not equal "about 30% of 125" that must be dropped no matter the method of exit?

The NCAA rules state that 25 is the annual maximum a school can normally sign each year. This has given rise to "beancounter" measures like "red shirt", "blue shirt", "gray shirt", etc. using various artificial measures to technically stay within the rules. These tricks have enabled some schools to "oversign" in certain years, sometimes by 5 or 6 players. To do this, the program must eliminate a like number of those already on scholarship in the program if they are at the 85 maximum.

Every school doesn't sign 25 a year. Every school doesn't force players out. Every player doesn't sit for a year. If 30% of all college players were essentially being cut it would be a much bigger deal than it is currently. There are some schools that abuse the crap out of the rules in place, that doesn't mean every school does.