|
Replies: 53
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 11:43 AM
|
|
I would like for schools to start making itemized receipts available for athletes to show them the money that they are saving with their scholarship.
Tuition - $20,000
Housing - $750 per month
Electricity - $100 per month
Tutor - $60 per hour
Lobster dinner (posted frequently from PAW Diner) - $50
Snack of handmade smoothie (shown on recent vlog served to football players every day) - $7
New shoes - $120
New suit (given to each football player) - $150 (at least)
Personal trainer - $50 per hour (at least)
At the end of each month the players should be shown what they have gotten.
This would most likely make athletes respect what is included with their scholarship a little more.
P.S. Sorry to the TNET police for the list. Please forgive me!
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Don't think you grasp the "problem." To some players, that
Oct 3, 2019, 11:48 AM
|
|
would just show them HOW LITTLE they are making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43077
Joined: 8/10/04
|
Good ole American greed.***
Oct 3, 2019, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
I think the line is "Dabo's making tens of millions..."
Oct 3, 2019, 12:52 PM
|
|
"we ain't makin' nuthin'."
As usual, they're only half right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27180]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16026
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 11:49 AM
|
|
You forgot personal dietitian. Not sure how much they run per hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Cool, now do one of those for the school that shows
Oct 3, 2019, 11:52 AM
|
|
itemized revenues the Clemson football program brings in and let's compare the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1826]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 979
Joined: 3/11/15
|
Right! The football program brings in, not the few
Oct 3, 2019, 11:56 AM
|
|
individuals whose likeness may actually be worth something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Ok, so we're only talking about a few players then
Oct 3, 2019, 12:05 PM
|
|
whose likeness may actually be worth something? On a team that is contending for a national championship we are only talking about a few players. If that's the case then why is everyone so paranoid that college football will never be the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22357
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Exactly***
Oct 3, 2019, 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1826]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 979
Joined: 3/11/15
|
I'm not one of the ones worried, but from discussions
Oct 3, 2019, 1:09 PM
[ in reply to Ok, so we're only talking about a few players then ] |
|
with friends who are, I think it is the old "pandoras box" thing where one thinks this leads to athletes wanting more and more. And that may be true, since they are already getting a stipend, which could easily be called "being paid".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I get that, but the stiped is pretty nominal.
Oct 3, 2019, 1:58 PM
|
|
I think a lot of regulations would be needed. But I also think a step towards college athletes being paid based on their likeness is a step in the right direction. Just my opinion which appears to be in the minority on this board!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65364]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33232
Joined: 12/3/03
|
The stipend is a pretty good example of the Pandora's box.
Oct 3, 2019, 4:03 PM
|
|
As soon as the stipend came about, it suddenly became about $1200 more expensive to attend Alabama than it had been before. Now, $1200 may not sound like a lot, but to a college kid who is gettng "nothing" it would seem like a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2248]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3227
Joined: 10/29/17
|
Re: Ok, so we're only talking about a few players then
Oct 3, 2019, 2:22 PM
[ in reply to Ok, so we're only talking about a few players then ] |
|
This issue has become very decisive and I am not sure that it should be. I think that it can be broken down into 2 things. Do you think these young men can earn money from outside sources while preventing abuse and keeping a relatively even playing field? If you believe that can happen then you support giving these young men and women the ability to create that income. It does not mean that you want to ruin the game like some have implied. If you believe that abuse will be rampant, then you likely think that universities are going to buy a winning program and there is going to be a big gap between the haves and have nots. It does not mean that you don't care about these young men and are a fan of modern day slavery like others have implied. There are probably a few who thing the ship has sailed on an even playing field, and defer to what I think is the lesser of the two points of contention.
Is it right for money that these young men have played a large part of generating, to be used for other programs? Ironically, it seems to be ones that tend to be more liberal economically that argue this is money that these young men have earned, and ones that argue that the money should go for the greater good tend to fall on the more conservative side economically. If you argue that these men deserve a greater cut, then you believe that economics should play a greater role on what is spent on sports programs that operate in the red. I'm not trying to say that you believe that those programs should be scrapped, but with a limited pot of money it has to come from somewhere.
As a quick aside, there are some that think the money should be taken from revenue producing programs that these young men are participating in. Personally, I think this is self defeating. The football and basketball programs are run to maximize profits. Programs do not spend large amounts of money because they want bragging rights for the highest paid coach. More success means more money. The outgoing funds do not always produce the desired effects, but without exception that is the goal.
Getting back on track, if you believe that that programs that fail to produce profits, produce non monetary benefits that constitute the expenses, then you are probably against a greater share of the profits going to basketball and football players.
Nobody here wants our young men to be abused, and nobody wants to destroy athletics. We simply disagree with what the results of certain actions would be. As much as we may think, we do not know what would happen, especially with all of the twists and turns the process could take. Whether we are right or wrong, the ones on the other side of the aisle are there for a desire for an honorable outcome. Therefore, in the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 10/29/03
|
Re: Cool, now do one of those for the school that shows
Oct 3, 2019, 12:08 PM
[ in reply to Cool, now do one of those for the school that shows ] |
|
You would also have to somehow come up with a number worth millions of dollars for the advertising money each would receive showcasing their skills on TV playing for Clemson for the world to see. Plus the instruction and training and equipment needed to hone those skills. I would be willing to bet if you paid the players to come play and then made them pay individually for the benefits they receive this "pay for play" issue would go away. They would be in the negative. And no they don't deserve the "millions" that the pros make. They are not pros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
You're going to run into a serious chicken and egg
Oct 3, 2019, 12:21 PM
|
|
argument on that one. The TV ratings and advertising dollars wouldn't be the same at Clemson if it were not for some of those top players who have potential to make money off of their own likeness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1249
Joined: 10/29/03
|
Re: You're going to run into a serious chicken and egg
Oct 3, 2019, 12:29 PM
|
|
Possibly but Clemson is on TV every year and has been since before they were born. It would be impossible for a player to get the exposure on their own so personally for me I would have to give the school to edge on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Possibly?!? So it's your contention that it is possible
Oct 3, 2019, 12:41 PM
|
|
that Clemson's TV and advertising revenues would be the same if they never brought in stars like CJ Spiller, Deshaun Watson, Christian Wilkins, Trevor Lawrence, etc? Heck, an argument can be made that without the big name football stars that Clemson brought in that started winning championships that we wouldn't even have an ACC network that resembles the one that was launched for this football season.
And that's just in football. Did Zion need Duke or was it possible for him to get the exposure on his own? I wonder how much money he alone brought into the conference last year when celebrities were buying up tickets to watch him play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Possibly?!? So it's your contention that it is possible
Oct 3, 2019, 12:49 PM
|
|
While I think basketball is a very different discussion because one player can make a team worth watching on tv, a prized recruit is not needed by a school for tv coverage any more than the school is needed for the player to get tv coverage.
The QB for Houston is a prime example. If he were playing for a program who already gets the recognition then he would likely be a household name and I would not have to call him the QB from Houston.
Also true, Houston would not likely see much tv without him because he is their "face of the program" type player.
It works both ways in football because to get the type of exposure that makes these athletes request money for their likeness, they typically have to be at one of the programs that is visible nationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Houston is a great example
Oct 3, 2019, 1:01 PM
|
|
QB goes to a smaller, non-P5 school and doesn't get the same exposure as Tua, TL, Hurts, Fromm, etc. But he's in the 4th largest city in the country, so why shouldn't he be able to leverage that to profit off of his own name/image and increase his exposure (which subsequently would also increase the team and school's exposure)?
Also, as you've pointed out there is a symbiotic relationship at Houston when it comes to television exposure and ad revenues, yet only the school is getting paid for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1826]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 979
Joined: 3/11/15
|
I guess I don't understand why you think he doesn't have the
Oct 3, 2019, 1:13 PM
|
|
right to leverage his likeness for money already. He does, he just has to leave college in order to do it. This is a free country and he is free to abide by the rules or go out and give it his all.
If athletes become employees I am not sure that gives them what they want. As an employee I sign away all rights to anything I come up with at work. I don't reap the rewards for patents I come up with, the company does. This is life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I don't think anyone is saying athletes should become
Oct 3, 2019, 1:22 PM
|
|
employees of the school.
Yes he is free to abide by the rules, but that does not mean the rules are fair and shouldn't be changed. Those rules were written long before coaches were signing $100M contracts and major television network revenues. Even the NCAA has admitted things need to change. The CA bill is probably not the right change, but the game has evolved, college athletics have evolved, the rules need to evolve as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Houston is a great example
Oct 3, 2019, 1:17 PM
[ in reply to Houston is a great example ] |
|
I think, as I've outlined above, the school is generously sharing its revenue in the form of everything provided to the football team at Houston.
Houston's players may not get all of the amenities that Clemson players receive, but Houston also doesn't get the revenue the Clemson gets either.
Also is it the QB that should solely benefit from the accolades he receives based on the blocking of his line, the catches by his Qbs. and the plays called by his coaches?
As I mentioned in another reply, individualizing the payments is where I take the most issue.
I 3rd down blocking TE who steps in and picks up a blitz to let the QB throw a wide open TD pass will get nothing in return while the QB and possibly the WR get paid to score TDs. It's an easy throw by the QB, easy catch by the WR, and a very difficult block by the guy who gets nothing for his likeness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10631]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9259
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Re: Houston is a great example
Oct 3, 2019, 5:04 PM
|
|
By trying to make the payment to athletes for their image "fair" they are in effect doing just the opposite. As you have pointed out, what is fair to the start QB and wide receiver, is not fair to the O linement that are protecting him because no one wants to buy a jersey with #72 on it except maybe his girlfriend and parents. There will be so many unintended consequences if this goes through that it will not be funny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [237]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 458
Joined: 2/5/02
|
Re: Possibly?!? So it's your contention that it is possible
Oct 3, 2019, 1:05 PM
[ in reply to Possibly?!? So it's your contention that it is possible ] |
|
I understand the point you are making. However, in the case of Zion, how much publicity did he have when he was playing for the private school in Greenville vs playing basketball at Duke. He could sell a whole lot more shoes at Duke. Same thing goes for CJ in Fort Myers. And of course, many others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I think we can admit that Zion was an outlier, but to answer
Oct 3, 2019, 1:13 PM
|
|
your question he had a ton of publicity. Videos were going viral every week of dunks he made during games. He was playing on national television. It was a lot like Lebron in high school.
I agree with your point that Duke gave him an even greater platform, no doubt about that. But I would guess, and it's just a guess without seeing any actual numbers, that Zion had a greater financial impact on the Duke program than any player they have had in a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1260]
TigerPulse: 47%
Posts: 1740
Joined: 10/3/19
|
I'm not sure I understand the notion that Zion had a
Oct 3, 2019, 3:47 PM
|
|
financial impact on Duke? How? They sell out the arena regardless. They sell clothing, hats, and gear regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: You're going to run into a serious chicken and egg
Oct 3, 2019, 1:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: You're going to run into a serious chicken and egg ] |
|
Clemson has been on tv for years, but I doubt the television contracts would be quite as high as they are for the ACC without the recent success of Clemson. You could debate that point if you like, but would fans be paying what they are for ticket prices currently if we were still going 7-5 each year? Would the money going into IPTAY be quite as high? Would our coaches be making anywhere near the money they're currently making?
Would the merchandise money be anywhere near as high as it is now? I don't have numbers to compare merchandise revenue over the years, but I'd guess the NC merchandise alone is bringing in more than the normal merchandise was in the years before.
Yes, it's a two way street and the schools are adding value and exposure to the players. I don't think anyone would debate that they don't, but the players are adding a great deal to the schools as well. Is it just a coincidence that they sell jerseys each year with the QB's number along with maybe 1-2 other jerseys with other high profile players on them each year? Yes the names aren't on there, but everyone knows who they are supposed to be for.
I know I always see people on Clemson Facebook pages showing pictures of their new jerseys with captions such as "got my son the Trevor Lawrence jersey today" or a similar post where someone is talking about going out and getting a Lawrence jersey. Heck, I then see many people offering to pay someone to add the name of a player on the back of the jersey they have. So Lawrence goes out, plays well enough and is likable enough that a fan wants a jersey with his number on it, and is even willing to pay someone to add his name on it as well, but that player should absolutely not be allowed to get a single cent from that? How exactly is that fair?
Yes, the school gives them that exposure, but I also wouldn't have a paycheck without my employer giving me one. Should they be allowed to not pay me since I wouldn't be able to do my job without them employing me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30778]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34475
Joined: 6/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11251]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6674
Joined: 11/23/03
|
Re: Bout
Oct 3, 2019, 12:45 PM
|
|
What is Swoffie's cut?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Cool, now do one of those for the school that shows
Oct 3, 2019, 12:34 PM
[ in reply to Cool, now do one of those for the school that shows ] |
|
That's a good idea.
Athletic department revenue divided by number of athletes.
Even better we could do athletic department profit divided by number of athletes.
The first comparison would likely be a much smaller number than most would think and would not be much different than the value of the scholarship.
The second would be a very small number as most schools don't turn a profit.
The bill in California does not specifically state that it is written for just football and basketball players.
For this reason when we compare revenue to scholarship we must include all athletic revenue and all athletes at a school.
If the football and basketball players don't like being taken advantage of, they are welcome to try a different sport where the athletes are not quite so "oppressed".
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9684]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9396
Joined: 1/18/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 12:47 PM
|
|
they should be entitled to a percentage of the revenue that is generated from their likeness. TL should get a percentage of all the #16 jerseys that are sold at the very minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16132]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26434
Joined: 11/18/03
|
communist.***
Oct 3, 2019, 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 12:58 PM
[ in reply to In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill ] |
|
The main problem with this is that the revenue generated by the player is completely fan-driven.
In the NFL, the best offensive and defensive tackles in the league are highly valued by their organizations and compensated in a manner that reflects that.
This alleviates the difference between star QB jersey sales and lineman jersey sales.
No matter how good Jackson Carman is, he will not come close to generating the same revenue in terms of fan desire as Trevor.
Without alternate forms of compensation, it will create great descent between players at the college level.
I do not dislike the idea of player compensation based on revenue, but I dislike individualizing that revenue.
I am all for a split pot of revenue between players upon graduation.
This would allow things like college athletic video games to come back. Player jersey sales would go into the pot. A college degree would be required to collect the money for the 3 or 4 or 5 years in college that your program was able to generate.
That system I believe alleviates some of the rogue booster paying for recruits and transfers idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I have no problem with that idea.***
Oct 3, 2019, 1:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 1:04 PM
[ in reply to Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill ] |
|
Why would it create any descent among players that isn't already there? You don't see many OL on the front of magazines like you do with Lawrence. You don't see many OL talked about as the likely #1 pick in the NFL draft 2 years from now like you do with Lawrence, and you don't see nearly as many lines for autographs, interviews, stories, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 1:26 PM
|
|
Several things:
We have had o linemen on the cover of SI standing right next to our QB. They were in the picture so it doesn't matter that the QB was the focal point.
OL are the #1 pick in the draft when they are good enough. Last year there were 3 QBs taken in the 1st round and 6 o linemen. There is no descent because when the money comes, the o linemen know they are valued by the people interested in winning.
Unless Trevor is getting paid for those autographs and interviews, they are a nuisance that the o linemen are not likely jealous of. Under the new law, he would get paid for them, thus creating a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 1:49 PM
|
|
Keep in mind, I'm not saying there is currently any issues between other players on our team or any other team based on these things. I'm only saying that I don't think the rest of our team would suddenly hate Lawrence because he was making more money on endorsements than they are.
To your point though, I'm sure we've had SI covers with other players either in the picture, or at least the background, but the first SI cover that came up with google was Lawrence by himself with his name across the front of the magazine. The next one that comes up does have two OL in the photo of Lawrence throwing the ball, but the caption is "Too Good To Be True" and Trevor Lawrence is the only name mentioned with a teaser for a story in the magazine about how the NFL can't wait for his future.
I'm sure the OL in the photo are happy to be on the cover, but do you really think they feel the cover is based on equal coverage for the 3 of them, and not that they just happened to be in the photo that was taken? Again, I'm not saying they would be upset about it or anything, but it's not the same.
You're right in saying lineman get drafted high as well. It's not often though you see a true freshman OL being talked up as the #1 pick in the draft whenever he's able to come out 2 years in the future. I'm sure Alabama has some OL on their current team that will eventually be 1st round picks, but I can't name any of them off the top of my head. I sure do know who Tua is though. I wonder how many fans of other teams can name any of our starting OL? I bet you they all know who Lawrence is though just as they knew Watson. Heck, I wonder how many of our starting OL that our own fans know off the top of their heads?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: In my opinion, which differs from the CA bill
Oct 3, 2019, 2:02 PM
|
|
I think your argument that nobody, maybe not even fans of a specific team, knows the offensive linemen is one in favor of not letting the QB get paid for his likeness.
The offensive linemen have almost no chance to profit from their likeness even though some of them may be the best player on offense.
Your idea that nobody suggests that a freshman o lineman will be the number one pick is because nobody talks about lineman at all. Linemen don't draw eyes to a tv screen.
Every year the first that most people hear of the best linemen in the country is when the draft "experts" start to predict who will be taken in the first round.
The major problem with all of this though is that players are rewarded for the notoriety of their position and not for the actual value that they provide to their team.
This is why I am in favor of the TEAM pot of money to be distributed between everyone who contributes to the team's success.
Each year the value is set for team revenue from various outlets (TV, video game, jersey sales, etc), and then distributed for each season the player was a member of the team upon graduation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43077
Joined: 8/10/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Equipment:
Oct 3, 2019, 12:43 PM
|
|
The equipment and gear is such a small portion of what they get.
I'm sure most would be much more willing to pay for their gear than to have to feed themselves the same food they are currently served for free.
I was a college athlete who was not in a fully funded sport in terms of food and nutrition.
My brother played at the same time I did.
My parents, who make a good living, spoke all the time about how feeding a college athlete was almost the same financial strain as trying to pay tuition.
With our activity level and constant need for calories we were constantly needing food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 1:00 PM
|
|
All that is great, and I certainly like to point those type of things out to anyone who refers to the college system as slavery or tries to act as if the players are starving or whatever.
All of that is a fair argument against asking the colleges to pay a salary to the athletes. However, what does any of that stuff have to do with a player being able to make money from outside sources based on their own likeness? They get all that from the school, so they shouldn't be allowed to make a few hundred bucks signing autographs or something similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Yes, they should.***
Oct 3, 2019, 1:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10855]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7642
Joined: 1/6/04
|
Re: Yes, they should.***
Oct 3, 2019, 1:27 PM
|
|
Until that UGA fan offers a Ford Raptor for 14 year old Trevor Lawrence's autograph...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Yes, they should.***
Oct 3, 2019, 1:37 PM
|
|
So none of the players should be allowed to make a single cent from their own likeness just to try and avoid the dishonest acts of a small percent of fans/players? Don't many people think those same type of players are already being paid from those same type of fans under the current system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 1:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Itemized Receipts ] |
|
As I mentioned above, I have no issue with paying players for those things long term.
However, I have a problem with the no-regulations concept being proposed by many to allow players to source out their own value and finding anyone who is willing to pay any price.
However, whether it is one player or a team event, I think it should all be school sanctioned so parameters could be set. I think this protects the idea of "college amateurism" and also protects the players from any backlash that could come from trying to deal with the process on their own.
I also think, while the payments should be passed out individually in the end, that the money should be spread out evenly in a pot among the team. Trevor doesn't have the same value without the rest of the offense and the same is true that the rest of the offense doesn't have the same value without Trevor. This keeps the linemen, who nobody knows because they don't score TDs, motivated to make sure their QB and RB stay clean in games to get them more publicity which in turn means more money in their pockets as well.
I do also think a degree should be required before money can be collected to maintain a certain level of academic importance for athletes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8244]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7565
Joined: 1/1/11
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 1:00 PM
|
|
I forgot to post on another link
Medical treatment a player gets
Whats the cost of an MRI over $10K
Hospital + Doctor for repair of ACL $50K +
Physical Rehab $100 per hour
Yea make them Tax Payers
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 1:34 PM
|
|
The current bills aren't even asking the schools to pay the players though. It's simply about not making a player ineligible for making money from outside sources, example - being paid to sign autographs.
To your point though, the player also wouldn't have those expenses if they weren't playing football. Who pays for continued medical service years down the road when they're still dealing with aches, pains, and potential surgeries for things related to their playing days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 1:42 PM
|
|
To answer your medical question, universities will continue to apply their insurance to injuries that are proven to have taken place while participating as an athlete at the school.
For example, a spine injury in a football game can continue to be covered if complications persist,
However, a former player who has general soreness in joints and muscles can't get help with a back surgery several years down the line if there was never a specific injury reported during their career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Same with CTE that cannot be traced to a specific
Oct 3, 2019, 2:13 PM
|
|
injury and can result from non-concussive hits.
Message was edited by: GWPTiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Same with CTE that cannot be traced to a specific
Oct 3, 2019, 2:20 PM
|
|
That is true.
Also to be clear, I was stating the NCAA policy on injury coverage after completion of a career and not advocating for it.
As a collegiate athlete who had surgery prior to my final year a eligibility it was a question that I asked and something that I wanted to be very clear on before reinserting myself into play and risking further injury.
I did have complications with my recovery, but fortunately it was nothing that required another surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1854]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1550
Joined: 10/3/19
|
Re: Itemized Receipts
Oct 3, 2019, 2:56 PM
|
|
players obviously receive incredible economic benefit that a sharp penciled accountant could quantify quickly. They get cash $ stipends for personal discretionary expenses - I would be happy if they increased stipend $. They also make great connections with alumni and boosters that are reserved for a select few. Sounds like a sweet deal. With the CA law and soon to be other state laws re: NIL, we will have private $ bidding wars for recruits and entire rosters that are bot and paid for by booster $. All perfectly legal, in writing and disclosed to the university. This is way bigger than a kid getting some coin for signing autographs or a few grand to sell trucks at your local Ford dealership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3135]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2975
Joined: 11/11/02
|
You forgot to add Access and Exposure
Oct 3, 2019, 3:36 PM
|
|
One of these days, there will be a Jr. NFL League so the access issue may be going away soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
