»
Topic: I don't think the NCAA/Universities should have to pay
Replies: 39   Last Post: Jul 2, 2014, 5:18 PM by: 92TigerGrad
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 39  

I don't think the NCAA/Universities should have to pay


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:39 PM
 

players, but they definitely shouldn't have the power to keep athletes from making money of their talents through endorsements.

A normal student can still receive scholarship money while marketing themselves otherwise and they don't generate anywhere close to the revenue top student-athletes rack in.

link

Shh...we robbed Martin Jenkins and Robinson of Millions.

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:43 PM
 

I've seen fives of their jerseys limp off the shelves.

link

ok...

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:45 PM
 

but shouldn't a Sammy watkins be able to collection on his jersey sales?

link

Sure. They could even set up a trust account or something.


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:48 PM
 

A little nest egg for when the player graduates or leaves college.

Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, get these kids some pizza money!

link

I realize you are being facetious but why couldn't


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:55 PM
 

they be paid like any other employee would?

link

Re: I realize you are being facetious but why couldn't


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:06 PM
 

I think this is where everyone is in disagreement.

Why are you under the impression that student athletes are employees?

link

They are not employees and that was a poor choice of words.

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:19 PM
 

Although I certainly think they are still being treated like employees in every way except being paid... that is not the point here.

If you read my original title i'm not suggesting the schools/ncaa treat them like employees, but that they shouldn't be able to prevent them from making money off of deals with Nike for example.

link

Being a NCAA student athlete is a job in my book,

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:34 PM
 

therefore, they are employees.

However, like an employee you agreed to a set hourly rate or salary(scholarships/etc.) for your work. Which means you shouldn't complain and want more. So there's that argument which I agree with to an extent.

Overall, I understand both sides of the argument, but I do feel to a certain extent that the major money making sports athletes should be paid. I have an issue with the fact that you can't go pro in basketball or football after HS, and therefore your best shot to make money is to play college athletics.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

"Clemson has been historically better than Carolina. That's pretty obvious." - Classof09

"No one knew we were overhyped until the season started." - Classof09


If players unionized they could change the


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:40 PM
 

3 year rule as well. Let's face it, the players are essential. If they unionized, they would have tremendous power to change rules.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: I realize you are being facetious but why couldn't

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:07 PM
 

They should not be paid like normal employees because they are students seeking to complete a college degree. Just like students on an academic scholarship they must maintain certain standards. In their case those standards are both academic and athletic in nature.

The issue about endorsements is a separate issue that could be handled in a creative way so they do not jeopardize their academic standing or their amateur status.

link

Understood,


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:21 PM
 

If you see my response to the above I agree with you for the most part here.

i'm not suggesting that the school/ncaa treat them like employees but they shouldn't not, at the same time, have the power to keep them from making money of their own brand through big endorsement deals such as nike.

link

They have no brand outside of their universities


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:50 PM
 

Tell me what 18 year old out of high school is worth? The only "value" that they have is attributable to their exposure generated by the University. Its the same as intellectual property that I generate while at work. Its my work but it is owned by my employer.


Now granted, that is a circular argument because the school has FUTURE exposure and dollars generated because of players. But the current revenue is based on the work of other players and coaches.

link

It's symbiotic relationship

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:02 PM
 

Clemson would not have this exposure if we didn't constantly field high quality players.

You can't tell me with a straight face that Sammy Watkins and CJ Spiller didn't add revenue to Clemson's pocket.

A lot of players would be able to collect significant monies on Jersey sales and other endorsements outside of the school paying them. Why shouldn't they be able to collect this?

It's because it would ruin football as is for you and me and cut into the school's and the NCAA's profits, that's why.

link

The problem with that is...

[3]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 12:56 PM
 

...it allows the owner of Billy Bob's Used Cars to pay Vic Beasley $500,000 for "endorsing" his place of business.

Can of worms - opened. Slippery slope - greased.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Understandable but that makes it ok to screw the player

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:01 PM
 

out of getting paid at all?

Everyone loves free market capitalism until it hurts their interests.

link

Its a recruiting nighmare to start this stuff


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:07 PM
 

You can imagine the lines that ND or Ohio St would come up with to persuade these kids to come to their school.

If you wanted to get them more $ you would have to force the schools to pay them all the exact same. Doesnt matter if you are Sammy Watkins or the 4th sting PK from Northwestern Idaho Skewl of the Blind.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

Re: Its a recruiting nighmare to start this stuff


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:19 PM
 

The NCAA set up much stricter guidelines for recruiting and academic performance because universities were using boosters to provide summer jobs to football and basketball players. Unfortunately, like most large organizations, those rules had unintended consequences. The basic premise behind the rules was to level the playing field so Oklahoma could not recruit 110 players many of whom would never play for Oklahoma (or Texas or Nebraska either). It also prevented universities from simply using money as an enticement.

link

Please read the original title


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:24 PM
 

We are not talking about schools paying players, we are talking about players not being able to make money through their own contract deals through endoresements.

I specifically said in the title that the NCAA/Universities should not have to play players.

link

Re: Understandable but that makes it ok to screw the player


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:12 PM
 

The university is the one with the bargaining power and the resources. They are the ones who have the brand and the contracts with TV and media entities that make playing for a shot at the NFL a realistic possibility. They are the ones who take on the risk. Someone has to pay for the athlete to go to school if they play for the school - and that's almost never the athlete unless in the obvious case of a walk on.

I think what you're advocating for is an NFL farm system. Or a system where players get paid, say 50K a year but must fund their own education.

link

Re: Understandable but that makes it ok to screw the player


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:27 PM
 

Well they certainly wouldn't have all these things... without the players..

But anyway, ANY other student receiving a scholarship from the school is not prevented from making money through other outlets. This is what I am talking about.

I'm not blind to the fact that this would open a can of worms for people to funnel money to players to get them to go to their schools but that's how every other entity works.

Why are college athletes the exception here? 2 reasons:

1. We like our football the way it is
2. People are making BIG profits off the players.

link

Re: Understandable but that makes it ok to screw the player


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:37 PM
 

I just feel like in college football, the players who wouldn't play for a scholarship and would rather 1) sit out and wait 3 years before trying their luck in the NFL or 2) going to an NFL farm system should such a system exist are replaceable with those who wouldn't mind playing for JUST a scholarship - if all programs operated in the same way.

Now obviously, if all of Clemson's best players decided NOT to sign because they wouldn't be fairly compensated, they would struggle to compete with schools that didn't have such rules. But obviously the NCAA wouldn't let that happen.

If it was an NCAA-wide thing where the best players just abstained from playing, Clemson wouldn't all of a sudden not be able to field a football team, as there are many kids who would still play for just the scholarship because a) they wouldn't mind playing for an education or b) they wouldn't be talented enough to go to the hypothetical NFL farm system.

I don't feel like the players individually make the money. I believe that it's the whole system they're a part of that generates the money.

link

Re: Understandable but that makes it ok to screw the player


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:49 PM
 

> I just feel like in college football, the players who
> wouldn't play for a scholarship and would rather 1)
> sit out and wait 3 years before trying their luck in
> the NFL or 2) going to an NFL farm system should such
> a system exist are replaceable with those who
> wouldn't mind playing for JUST a scholarship - if all
> programs operated in the same way.
>
> Now obviously, if all of Clemson's best players
> decided NOT to sign because they wouldn't be fairly
> compensated, they would struggle to compete with
> schools that didn't have such rules. But obviously
> the NCAA wouldn't let that happen.
>
> If it was an NCAA-wide thing where the best players
> just abstained from playing, Clemson wouldn't all of
> a sudden not be able to field a football team, as
> there are many kids who would still play for just the
> scholarship because a) they wouldn't mind playing for
> an education or b) they wouldn't be talented enough
> to go to the hypothetical NFL farm system.

I don't agree with everything you've said here but for the most part I get it.

> I don't feel like the players individually make the
> money. I believe that it's the whole system they're a
> part of that generates the money.

This part I just can't fathom. Pro athletes are paid so much because they are a big part of bringing in revenue. I understand that student-athletes are not professionals but to say that they don't help generate revenue (and a big part of it) is just flat out incorrect.

link

If I had a solution to the problem, I would post it. :-)


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:16 PM
 

But when someone figures out how to pay the players, college football as we know it will end. The richer schools will (almost) always win, the less rich schools will (almost) always lose.

Since 83.4% (I made up that number) of the players couldn't even get into their school of choice without football, I think they should be happy with their lot in life.

They live in a country that their skills are coveted enough that someone will pay their tuition, pay for their books, pay their room and board, provide free training facilities and trainers, provide free tutoring, provide free food and nutrition counseling, etc. just so they can play football.

No one is forcing them to play football, they can just be a regular student...oh wait a minute - they don't want THAT!!

Oh - and the kids from financially challenged families get a nice $5000 check each year from the government (courtesy of you and me). And the other kid's families can afford to buy them a pizza if they want it...

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Let's be honest here


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:22 PM
 

We only care about this because if we let the players get paid, it would ruin our fall weekends because it's not football as we know it. It doesn't matter that the players are getting screwed here.

link

I don't think they're getting screwed. The majority of them


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:46 PM
 

are being given the opportunity of a lifetime.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


They flat out are not allowed to collect money


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:53 PM
 

generated through their hard work and talent unless they are in the top ~ 1 - 2 % that makes it into the NFL.

And i'm not referring to getting paid by the school, I mean they aren't allowed to accept money for ANY endorsements. If that isn't getting screwed out of money, i'm not sure what is.

link

We just disagree. They are being handsomely compensated


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 4:16 PM
 

with something other than money. They are well aware of that going in...

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Re: We just disagree. They are being handsomely compensated


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 4:21 PM
 

Look man, I completely 100% agree with your they are getting an excellent opportunity by being given a free education and a potential (albeit a small one) change at making the big bucks with the NFL.

But i'm getting a little frustrated here because that's not what i'm talking about and nobody in this thread seems to understand that...

I don't think the school owes them much if anything other than the scholarships they are giving the players. What I am saying is that they should not be prevented from making money OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL AND NCAA through endorsements or deals they make to sell items with their likeness or names on it.

The school shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it to.

link

I've stated already why that is a bad idea. It is the


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 4:24 PM
 

equivalent of allowing supporters to pay the players.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


I actually agree with you. I just think the players


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 5:18 PM
 

are going to have to really stand up to make the change happen. They have all the power if they would just use it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: I don't think the NCAA/Universities should have to pay


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:11 PM
 

Big 5 need to join up in their own division. Set a certain amount that goes into a trust account for each player and a certain amount that can be drawn from the account at certain intervals. Has to be universal.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


but, but, but.... that's communism/socialism!!!***


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:05 PM
 



link

you joke but the irony here is people do think that way


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:09 PM
 

but yet they don't want the free market to work here either...

As long as our precious football games are saved, who cares how much the players are screwed right?

link

Here is the problem....


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 1:31 PM
 

you have kids coming out of high school that have aspirations of playing in the pro's (ie. getting paid to play). Those kids cant get paid because there is a minimum requirement of being 3 years removed from high school before they are eligible to join the NFL. In essence, these kids are forced to play 3 years of football for a college for no money.

The solution...

IMO is NOT to pay the players, but rather remove the 3 year waiting period from the NFL. By doing that, there is nothing left but a choice. I would also leave the draft open and not make kids declare. I would make it more like baseball, but thats just me.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

The system in place was developed freely and voluntarily.

[1]
Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:12 PM
 

The NCAA made the rules against paying players. Colleges CHOOSE to be part of the NCAA. Players CHOOSE to play for colleges knowing full well that the colleges are part of the NCAA and by rule cannot pay them. If players believe so strongly that they should be paid while in college, they should not accept scholarships and go play for colleges that CANNOT pay them. If colleges believe that they should be allowed to pay players, they should either push for a vote to change the NCAA rule or drop out of the NCAA. As for players suing the NCAA, they have no leg to stand on. Nobody twists their arms to make them agree to play for schools that are not permitted to pay them. They do it voluntarily in hopes of making the NFL. Should high schools be forced to pay players if their teams generate revenue? What is the difference?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

By the way, I am not against paying players.


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:18 PM
 

I am just saying the lawsuit is ridiculous. I think schools should push the NCAA for a rule change to allow some compensation over and above scholarships, meals and housing.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

but you are against playing payers...


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:29 PM
 

"see what I did there?"

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Did anyone read the title of this post?


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:20 PM
 

I specifically stated that I don't think the school and/or NCAA should pay the players.

The NCAA PREVENTS players from collecting money through other avenues though, which is wrong. Why shouldn't a Sammy Watkins be able to sign endorsements and collect on Jersey Sales using his name or do commercials for money?

I know why it happens, so that it is easy for everyone to sit back and and collect on the revenue because they know full well it's easy to manipulate these players.

Schools are making big time money of the sport and players are a huge part of generating that revenue. Student athlete or not, they shouldn't be banned from making their own deals outside the school/ncaa.

link

Still - the players know the rules going in.


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 2:24 PM
 

They do not have to agree to play. They do it voluntarily. Their way to fix this is to band together (unionize I guess) and refuse to play under the current rules.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Just because "that's the way it is" doesn't make it right.


Posted: Jul 2, 2014, 4:18 PM
 

You say that don't have to agree to play. Of course they don't. But for a lot of these kids it's the better option than staying at home and working at mcdonald's.

That doesn't mean it's ok for the institution to take advantage of them just because they made the choice that was better of the limited ones they had.

I'm not sure I want to see a unionization of the players here but i'm not sure how else they can make a meaningful change.

link

Replies: 39  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 2, 3 or 4 tickets (together) in LOWER SOUTH Section UI. Panoramic view of the field. $1500 per pair ...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1479 people have read this post