(10-01-2019 09:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 06:23 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 05:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 04:55 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 04:26 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  While I agree it's a slippery slope...there something that just irks me about someone who makes just north of $1.1M a year off the hard work of 85 people who make exactly $0 saying that we shouldn't compensate players in some way.

You might want to hire a new accountant.

Regardless, absolutely NO ONE put a gun to anyone's head to take that deal. Correct? There are GRADUATED interns seriously making $0 or not much more in certain fields as that is the way into their chosen profession. It's a sacrifice chosen and made. On many resumes, not having any volunteer work is a sure way to be triaged to the garbage can. "Free work" is also a plus when applying for college at UT by ANY student.

A university's function is not professional sports. That coaches are making that kind of money has to do with media. In that instance, they are using the college player's likeness within their control. It's not Madden. Sure it's out of whack. Two whacks don't make a right. Kick the sport off campus or make it an independent entity that perhaps happens to rent facilities on campus but within University jurisdiction? They're just students. They want money, get a job in the kitchen.

Find me a single student athlete who made money specifically from athletics at UT without engaging in criminal point shaving scandals and it'll be the first.

Scholarships aren't money? Room and board aren't money? Those bowl treats aren't money? Playing a semantics game here aren't you? If the STUDENT-athletes weren't given those, how many of those athletes do you think would be here? Or at Cinci? Over the years, we've gotten recruits who have Ivy offers. Think they would have still come here?

Of course they're paid. That isn't even the controversy. It's are they paid enough? Are the peripheral individuals over compensated? And are student likenesses being unfairly used in other endeavors? No one with a brain is accusing the Universities over being over compensated, except for a few rare exceptions.

Professional sports is not the purpose of a University. It would be one more public intrustion into the free-market. It would be a distraction from the mission of a University. No and no.

Being the only modern Division 1 athlete in this conversation, I can probably speak a bit more to this point than anyone else on here. To state it plainly...no, student athletes are not paid to go to school, and in some cases it actually costs them money. My choosing to play division 1 soccer at UC cost me roughly $4,000/year in scholarship rebates, as NCAA policy dictates that no student athlete can earn more in scholarships that the COA at their institution. No money goes into bank accounts or transfers hands, essentially, the students go to school and don't have to pay, which is far different than getting paid to play (which is the point I was making).

While in my career at UC, I wasn't allowed to work a paid co-op in Civil Engineering despite it being a MANDATORY program for my degree, as it was considered at that time to be an impermissible benefit. It's asinine stuff like that which is the primary problem with the NCAA, they haven't gotten out of their own way for so long that people are starting to choose the "break the system" model as opposed to the "improve the system" one. Luckily the NCAA changed that ruling a few years back, so that's not as much of a problem now...and please, don't get me started on your "value of an unpaid internship" comment, because there is far more workforce development research against that statement than you'd be able to fit on an internet forum.

I specifically think that a student should be able to benefit from their likeness, and right now, they're essentially being held hostage in that regard. As stated in a few prior posts, anyone thinking this is going to be the death knell of college athletics clearly don't understand how little a majority of people will be valued. This will likely affect the recruitment of the top 20-50 football players and top 10-20 basketball players in America every year, players that 120/139 and 350/381 schools in football and basketball respectively aren't getting anyways. At best, this allows hometown heroes and players who are doing well for their schools to get some local endorsements, but it won't be Nike dropping the money bags to get a college AAU together...the NCAA is smart enough to make sure that doesn't happen. Truthfully, that's why a deferred income model is probably the smartest thing they can do now. Allow students to go out and get it, but it won't be disbursed until after their eligibility is exhausted. The idea that a Bryant Koback type player could get $1,000 to do a Yark Auto Mall promo or something is perfectly fine in my book, and will do nothing but benefit the players' in their general well-being while also more greatly ingraining the team and athlete to their community.

He would be getting the pay mainly because of the University's brand. You want to do a stipend for the players from the NCAA evenly divided among every
team that's a different story.

(10-01-2019 09:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I specifically think that a student should be able to benefit from their likeness, and right now, they're essentially being held hostage in that regard.

These hostage/slavery analogies need to stop. People using them look the moron for thinking they are victims, let alone victims of that level. Someone forced you to play soccer? Someone forced you to go to Cincinnati? You signed a contract that you could not just at will break?

Please, just stop with the victimization. You got paid. There are grad students saving lives, developing the future, making much less. Going further into depth. It's called "investment." You kicked a ball for someone else's entertainment and got paid to do it. You were no "hostage." You invested willingly and with other options, in your future.

Here's your solution. No more soccer scholarships at Universities. Enjoy your college years on the Pacesetters. See if what they pay you covers your classes and books and housing.

(10-02-2019 06:07 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I specifically think that a student should be able to benefit from their likeness, and right now, they're essentially being held hostage in that regard.

These hostage/slavery analogies need to stop. People using them look the moron for thinking they are victims, let alone victims of that level. Someone forced you to play soccer? Someone forced you to go to Cincinnati? You signed a contract that you could not just at will break?

Please, just stop with the victimization. You got paid. There are grad students saving lives, developing the future, making much less. Going further into depth. It's called "investment." You kicked a ball for someone else's entertainment and got paid to do it. You were no "hostage." You invested willingly and with other options, in your future.

Here's your solution. No more soccer scholarships at Universities. Enjoy your college years on the Pacesetters. See if what they pay you covers your classes and books and housing.

And probably not that many people's entertainment.
UT's club sport hockey team would probably
love to be on scholarship.

(10-01-2019 07:10 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  To Recruit
Come to our big P5 school. Our shoe provider will sign you to a big deal. We've got guys willing to pay $1000 for a signed T-shirt.

This happens, I'd be for dumping athletics

This could be the "beginning of the end" for College Football. There will be no room for mid-majors in this environment.

I know the average age of this board lends me to likely be beating my head against a wall on most progressive topics, but I'll try and frame this in a way that better discusses my argument. Reality always seems to be the best example, so lets go there:

One of my roommates in my time at UC was the starting strong safety on the football team for 2.5 seasons and eventually was named to the All Big East team in one of those years. Now, he was an Architectural Engineering major (we took quite a few classes together as that's an off-shoot of Civil Engineering, which is the only reason a soccer player and football player were able to become fast friends). As a football player, he was able to receive the full cost of attendance as reported by UC to the US DOE, which at that time was roughly $28,000 for an out of state individual. That's awesome and according to many by way of inference, likely more than he deserves for playing a game. He was a good student in high school (above a 4.0 GPA and top 20 in his class at an incredibly large school in Florida, ~3500 students) but that's beside the point.

So, there are traditional students who are in our friends group and we get to talking about money and where we all stand, because one made a comment that he wished he were in our shoes (he didn't understand that Men's Soccer only pays out 9.9 scholarships to a team of 25+ and I was lucky enough to have academic awards cover the remainder of my tuition and most of my R&B, so he backtracked quickly on my side, as a 4.7 GPA and 34 ACT will help with that). When word got around to the football player, he stated the same thing I had, that he was unable to co-op for pay because of NCAA regulations and the burden of proof on the S-A that our assignments were not gained through our notoriety in athletics, despite it being a mandatory assignment for completion of his degree, so he lost out on a program that paid an average of $9,000 post-tax to students in each quarter, for 6 quarters total ($54,000/career). He also did not receive any of his academic awards, both from the institution and outside entities, which would've totaled roughly $15,000/year ($60,000/career). He was also unable to work a job anywhere but the University, and even then it was unpaid (he was an athletics RA, which was a mandatory position for the athletics only dorm and one he loved, but he was not paid a cent of the $10,000/year it was worth in covering R&B ($30,000/career). He also would've loved to join the fraternity that his late father was a part of at another institution, however, as his mother was on social assistance due to a bad accident, and he could not make money on the side to pay for it OR receive a scholarship for the amount from the University, as each were deemed impermissible at the time, he was unable to...so he lost out on opportunities that normal college students were able to do.

Let's do the math here! He was "paid" roughly $112,000 (I can't remember the exact amount here, because it was a few years back and COA has changed so much). He lost out on an opportunity to join a club he really wanted to due to NCAA regulations that have since been relaxed SLIGHTLY, and as a traditional student with his qualifications, he would've had roughly $144,000 during his career due to co-op pay, scholarships, and work assignments that he was unable to collect on because of the NCAA....$84,000 of that which would be reasonable to collect even with a full-ride for EVERY other student on the planet. So, due to his status as a college athlete, he was unable to engage in activities and organizations that he would've like to because he was unable to make money which he should have been owed, and he also took a shortfall of $32,000 over how much he would've made as a traditional student.

The reason why I say students are being "held hostage" when they're taking part in an elective extracurricular activity is because many more are in this situation, where they cannot afford certain things or be able to take part in things they'd want to because of stupid regulations...and NONE of this is explained to you until AFTER you sign your LOI. Sure, he could've dropped out of football and collected this cash instead, but the question on all of our (S-A's) minds is why in the hell we would have to do that and be further penalized by not playing the sport we love when every other student is allowed to do that stuff with no problem at all.

I know we'll never get to the same point here, but I hope this at least helps to personalize the problem a bit for those who are unaware of the intricacies...and yes, I realize that to many I'm a second class citizen and less of a man here because of the sport I played Boca, but thanks for furthering that one...even if I played football along with it in high school.

(10-02-2019 07:32 AM)BDV27 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 07:10 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  To Recruit
Come to our big P5 school. Our shoe provider will sign you to a big deal. We've got guys willing to pay $1000 for a signed T-shirt.

This happens, I'd be for dumping athletics

This could be the "beginning of the end" for College Football. There will be no room for mid-majors in this environment.

Just stop...there are 85 scholarships at every program, and this won't affect anyone who mid-majors get to come to fill those spots. Mid-majors aren't beating any of the top competition anyways, so how is this any different at all?

(10-02-2019 07:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  
[b]I know the average age of this board lends me to likely be beating my head against a wall on most progressive topics

WTF?

(10-02-2019 07:51 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:32 AM)BDV27 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 07:10 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  To Recruit
Come to our big P5 school. Our shoe provider will sign you to a big deal. We've got guys willing to pay $1000 for a signed T-shirt.

This happens, I'd be for dumping athletics

This could be the "beginning of the end" for College Football. There will be no room for mid-majors in this environment.

Just stop...there are 85 scholarships at every program, and this won't affect anyone who mid-majors get to come to fill those spots. Mid-majors aren't beating any of the top competition anyways, so how is this any different at all?

Probably 2/3's of P5 aren't able to compete with its
top teams.

(10-02-2019 07:49 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I know the average age of this board lends me to likely be beating my head against a wall on most progressive topics, but I'll try and frame this in a way that better discusses my argument. Reality always seems to be the best example, so lets go there:

One of my roommates in my time at UC was the starting strong safety on the football team for 2.5 seasons and eventually was named to the All Big East team in one of those years. Now, he was an Architectural Engineering major (we took quite a few classes together as that's an off-shoot of Civil Engineering, which is the only reason a soccer player and football player were able to become fast friends). As a football player, he was able to receive the full cost of attendance as reported by UC to the US DOE, which at that time was roughly $28,000 for an out of state individual. That's awesome and according to many by way of inference, likely more than he deserves for playing a game. He was a good student in high school (above a 4.0 GPA and top 20 in his class at an incredibly large school in Florida, ~3500 students) but that's beside the point.

So, there are traditional students who are in our friends group and we get to talking about money and where we all stand, because one made a comment that he wished he were in our shoes (he didn't understand that Men's Soccer only pays out 9.9 scholarships to a team of 25+ and I was lucky enough to have academic awards cover the remainder of my tuition and most of my R&B, so he backtracked quickly on my side, as a 4.7 GPA and 34 ACT will help with that). When word got around to the football player, he stated the same thing I had, that he was unable to co-op for pay because of NCAA regulations and the burden of proof on the S-A that our assignments were not gained through our notoriety in athletics, despite it being a mandatory assignment for completion of his degree, so he lost out on a program that paid an average of $9,000 post-tax to students in each quarter, for 6 quarters total ($54,000/career). He also did not receive any of his academic awards, both from the institution and outside entities, which would've totaled roughly $15,000/year ($60,000/career). He was also unable to work a job anywhere but the University, and even then it was unpaid (he was an athletics RA, which was a mandatory position for the athletics only dorm and one he loved, but he was not paid a cent of the $10,000/year it was worth in covering R&B ($30,000/career). He also would've loved to join the fraternity that his late father was a part of at another institution, however, as his mother was on social assistance due to a bad accident, and he could not make money on the side to pay for it OR receive a scholarship for the amount from the University, as each were deemed impermissible at the time, he was unable to...so he lost out on opportunities that normal college students were able to do.

Let's do the math here! He was "paid" roughly $112,000 (I can't remember the exact amount here, because it was a few years back and COA has changed so much). He lost out on an opportunity to join a club he really wanted to due to NCAA regulations that have since been relaxed SLIGHTLY, and as a traditional student with his qualifications, he would've had roughly $144,000 during his career due to co-op pay, scholarships, and work assignments that he was unable to collect on because of the NCAA....$84,000 of that which would be reasonable to collect even with a full-ride for EVERY other student on the planet. So, due to his status as a college athlete, he was unable to engage in activities and organizations that he would've like to because he was unable to make money which he should have been owed, and he also took a shortfall of $32,000 over how much he would've made as a traditional student.

The reason why I say students are being "held hostage" when they're taking part in an elective extracurricular activity is because many more are in this situation, where they cannot afford certain things or be able to take part in things they'd want to because of stupid regulations...and NONE of this is explained to you until AFTER you sign your LOI. Sure, he could've dropped out of football and collected this cash instead, but the question on all of our (S-A's) minds is why in the hell we would have to do that and be further penalized by not playing the sport we love when every other student is allowed to do that stuff with no problem at all.

I know we'll never get to the same point here, but I hope this at least helps to personalize the problem a bit for those who are unaware of the intricacies...and yes, I realize that to many I'm a second class citizen and less of a man here because of the sport I played Boca, but thanks for furthering that one...even if I played football along with it in high school.

I only mentioned that college soccer is not a big draw on most college campuses.

Btw, did someone related to you work for UT and
then UC?

(10-02-2019 08:50 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:51 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 07:32 AM)BDV27 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 07:10 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  To Recruit
Come to our big P5 school. Our shoe provider will sign you to a big deal. We've got guys willing to pay $1000 for a signed T-shirt.

This happens, I'd be for dumping athletics

This could be the "beginning of the end" for College Football. There will be no room for mid-majors in this environment.

Just stop...there are 85 scholarships at every program, and this won't affect anyone who mid-majors get to come to fill those spots. Mid-majors aren't beating any of the top competition anyways, so how is this any different at all?

Probably 2/3's of P5 aren't able to compete with its
top teams.

Exactly...its not like this is going to make Wake Forest and Kansas football destinations or anything. It's only going to affect the players at MAYBE 15 institutions, and even then, most of them would be going there anyways. The 3* OLman from Shadyside High School isn't going to pick a school based on endorsement deals, it's the 5* QB who is #3 in his class picking based on exposure.

Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politically I'm pretty familiar.

You have a little bit of an idea.

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

If I join a club , move into a development, take a job
all which have certain restrictions that I agree to in return for certain benefits and create a contract, Im not forced into accepting the terms. I can simply move on.

(10-02-2019 11:26 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

If I join a club , move into a development, take a job
all which have certain restrictions that I agree to in return for certain benefits and create a contract, Im not forced into accepting the terms. I can simply move on.

Sure, but you're also welcome to try to change those terms. However you slice it, the current terms of their agreement are artificially restricting players' rights. Specifically, they are signing away the rights to their own likenesses. That's legal, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Players are already agreeing to "work" for free, and given that most colleges aren't making money off athletics, I and most people don't have a huge problem with that. It's the artificial restriction of their rights outside of their college commitments that doesn't make sense.

The arguments about competitive balance that always come up are ignoring the facts that there isn't any competitive balance in the NCAA as it stands, and players and recruits at big time schools are already being rampantly paid under the table.

(10-02-2019 11:35 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:26 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

wmubroncopilot datelines g='1570030335' Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

If I join a club , move into a development, take a job
all which have certain restrictions that I agree to in return for certain benefits and create a contract, Im not forced into accepting the terms. I can simply move on.

Sure, but you're also welcome to try to change those terms. However you slice it, the current terms of their agreement are artificially restricting players' rights. Specifically, they are signing away the rights to their own likenesses. That's legal, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Players are already agreeing to "work" for free, and given that most colleges aren't making money off athletics, I and most people don't have a huge problem with that. It's the artificial restriction of their rights outside of their college commitments that doesn't make sense.

The arguments about competitive balance that always come up are ignoring the facts that there isn't any competitive balance in the NCAA as it stands, and players and recruits at big time schools are already being rampantly paid under the table.

Really, you need to turn your inside information to the NCAA.
I keep hearing from the pro payment side:
Everybody is making money except the players.
The education is worth nothing.
And now the programs are corrupt and paying players
anyways.

We can fix this real quick, dump the athletics.
Or go to no scholarships. Give the game back to
student athletes.Want to get paid go pro.

(10-02-2019 12:00 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:35 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 11:26 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

If I join a club , move into a development, take a job
all which have certain restrictions that I agree to in return for certain benefits and create a contract, Im not forced into accepting the terms. I can simply move on.

Sure, but you're also welcome to try to change those terms. However you slice it, the current terms of their agreement are artificially restricting players' rights. Specifically, they are signing away the rights to their own likenesses. That's legal, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Players are already agreeing to "work" for free, and given that most colleges aren't making money off athletics, I and most people don't have a huge problem with that. It's the artificial restriction of their rights outside of their college commitments that doesn't make sense.

The arguments about competitive balance that always come up are ignoring the facts that there isn't any competitive balance in the NCAA as it stands, and players and recruits at big time schools are already being rampantly paid under the table.

Really, you need to turn your inside information to the NCAA.
I keep hearing from the pro payment side:
Everybody is making money except the players.
The education is worth nothing.
And now the programs are corrupt and paying players
anyways.

We can fix this real quick, dump the athletics.
Or go to no scholarships. Give the game back to
student athletes.Want to get paid go pro.

From the standpoint of someone within higher education, I would LOVE this to happen...but it never will, because no one is willing to be the first to jump. The fact that AD's outside of the P5 run up $20M+ budget shortfalls every year and require funds that could be used to support the growth of academics and services within their institution is ridiculous.

(10-02-2019 10:47 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 10:32 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why is it that "free market conservatives" seem so against the free market working in this specific case?

Examples?

There's a clear "left/right" divide on this issue if you've been paying attention. Of course there are exceptions like any issue, and yes I'm generalizing. But I'm comfortable saying most people opposing this would otherwise consider themselves pro- free market.

Obvious example on this board would be Boca with whose politics I'm pretty familiar.

OK, there’s one example that I’m not sure is valid. I was looking more for national voices on the issue. It certainly isn’t clear cut for me. I can see merit to just about every argument on here.

LOI is a contract. Read it. If you agree with the terms, sign it, if you don't then don't sign it. If you do not under stand it find someone that is.

Student loans are a contract too. Read it. Those have to be paid too.

This is not a free market issue, it is a contractual issue. College football is not a free market. Its in the LOI contract I am sure.

Conservative people believe in contracts and laws and things. Progressive types want to play on victimhood. And college students in general are victims to a lot of people. In college you learn.

News flash. In business, others will take advantage of people too. Or take people for granted. Some people get paid a lot for little. Some get paid a little for a lot.