|
Replies: 56
| visibility 1
|
Varsity [212]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/27/14
|
A Serious Discussion About Unions/Paying Players (long)
Mar 28, 2014, 12:32 PM
|
|
Hello all. I joined t-net specifically to post this thread because I've been seeing a lot of mis- or underinformed comments around here on the whole playing players situation. I'm not going to advocate one side or the other (I honestly have not decided either way), but it is important for people here to have realistic discussions (unlike the fool who said "hundreds of drug dealers" are about to move in and "destroy colleges" if players start cashing checks) so I'm going to throw some facts out for y'all.
First, most of the criticisms against the recent judgment (and the idea of paying players in general) seem to come from the "what-if" perspective. Like "Are they going to pay taxes now? What if they go to the pros, can we get the money back? How do we decide who makes what? etc" A lot of folks seem to think that because they can't answer these questions, that no one can, and so paying players cannot be done. Here are a couple links to well-thought-out proposals that answer most or all of these types of questions.
Short and simple reading:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2007673-if-college-football-players-are-going-to-get-paid-heres-how-it-should-be-done
More in-depth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html?ref=joenocera&pagewanted=all
Related criticisms:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/nocera-ncaas-justice-system.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Now, I'm going to take issue with another common criticism I've been reading because I sense some sports/politics hypocrisy. How many of y'all like the free market? Hate financial regulations that stifle business? Monopolies like cable companies and robber-barons like the old Standard Oil are bad for consumers, right? These are some of the exact arguments against the NCAA system. The NCAA is the only entity in this entire country with a total monopoly it uses to make a lot of money and have its employees (I'm calling the players workers here because it is them creating the product people pay for, not NCAA upper management) work for free (those who disagree with this sentence will be addressed below and in the links). Would you tolerate this is any other industry, or one that doesn't create a product you're afraid to see "ruined?" Be honest with yourself.
Say we forget about universities paying players and we merely change the rule that players can earn whatever endorsements people give them (assuming we can prevent sketchy boosters overpaying for this stuff to get recruits, which we can, see above B/R link). That is free-market capitalism, through-and through. So let's call a spade a spade in here and admit that college sports is a business which needs appropriate regulations to prevent abuse of employees, protect corporate profit/investment, and maintain the social value of the product (a spot we all know and love).
There was a fellow on a big thread who referenced Northwestern's tuition, saying players are basically getting that value. If that guy had did a bit more searching he would have realized that 45k ain't the real price; a huge proportion, maybe a majority of folks, do not pay that figure with all the schollies and aid. Is a Purdue degree worth the 250k they charge ultimately? The market says no; that is a made-up price meant to inflate perceived value. When Sears prices a dryer something stupid and gives you 40% off, isn't the discounted price more the real one, in your opinion?
A ton of people keep talking about all the "perks" players get, like free travel, nutrition, tutors etc. as if this stuff is really a perk. It ain't. It's no different than Google catering food for all their employees; the goal is to increase productivity and attract more talent. These nice things are all tools players are using (and being forced to use) to better compete at their jobs. At the majority of schools, if a FB/BB player is a marginal student but an excellent player, is he going to get his opportunities and every advantage? Surely. But if he's a marginal (or injured) talent and a great student? He is at risk to lose his scholly. This fact alone proves that the name of the game for these guys is sports, not school.
I won't keep going through the poorly thought out stuff I see on here because professional writers and business minds have done a better job. Just thought I'd bring a little balance to the debate in here, because it's been pretty one-sided far as I can tell. I would please ask folks to get informed about criticism before spouting off. Have a lovely day gents.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
lol...serious debate eh?
Mar 28, 2014, 12:40 PM
|
|
These perks aren't perks. .. yeah ok.
I'm a graduate who makes decent money. .I have never been to Italy. I certainly couldn't afford it on college. I see, if you go there to play ball, it Really isn't a perk.
Perks are not perks ?
I worked my a rse of f in high schoolschool graduated in the top 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [212]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/27/14
|
Re: lol...serious debate eh?
Mar 28, 2014, 12:45 PM
|
|
While I'm sorry that you haven't made enough money to go to Italy, you evidently haven't done anything that makes someone else want to pay for you to go either. The BB players earned it through their conduct and importance to the school's finances and reputation.
You think that tourney trip to Italy was purely a gift to the players? Sure, whoever planned it wanted the players to enjoy themselves and view it as a reward, but you're naive if you think it wasn't a business call at heart.
Clemson knows that those types of glitzy trips motivate the players and impress recruits, which pays the U back plenty over time. If they didn't think it would ultimately be profitable, it wouldn't have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11/27/11
|
You said it: They earned it. A bonus and benefit
Mar 28, 2014, 2:41 PM
|
|
is still held against income values. You can say that scholarships aren't worth the tuition, but you can't falsely argue that "It's not worth that much because of scholarships." That's a falacy. They are worth what the school charges for tuition. A vast majority of students do not qualify for tuition assistance. Many people fall right in the middle and must pay the full amount, which is $45K, or $60K or what have you at an individual school. To claim that these are not benefits is ludicrous. My proposal is this: Do away with athletic scholarships and give the student a monetary value of what the scholarship and included perks is. Then let them PAY for everything they get like other students do. If they mismanage their money, they get suspended or kicked out. What ever is left over at the end, they keep.
That way, they only pay for the perks they use. This includes gym access and trainers' time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
in my class of over 300 and had to sweat bullets waiting for acceptance
Mar 28, 2014, 12:45 PM
|
|
Letters,. Joe blOw can barely read and right but he gets in full ride. But that isn't a perk because the evil college makes money.
I had to learn how to tell jokes , dance, and buy alcohol to get girls to look my way. Crap majestic has girls all over him. But t hat isn't a perk because he had to lift weights 4 times a week.
If I had trouble with school work I had to find a way to figure it out or fail. Bob baller gets 12 tutors to spoon feed him info. But that isn't a Perk because his jersey is in the school store.
Yeah ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [212]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/27/14
|
Re: in my class of over 300 and had to sweat bullets waiting for acceptance
Mar 28, 2014, 12:52 PM
|
|
You seem to be mad that CFB/BB players get these advantages over you, despite the fact that you worked hard. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you're bitter these players worked smart and hard and you only worked hard.
Say you work 60 hours a week as a gas station attendant. Say Joe blow works 30 hours a week designing new features for the iPhone. Are you really going to say you deserve an employer-sponsored trip to Italy more than he does, just because you worked "harder?" His results are worth more.
The fact of the matter is that no mater how hard you think these players are working, they create more value to the school than you do/did. That's why they get these nice rewards, because they help players create even more value.
Even if they can't read or whatever when they come in, isn't it even more impressive then that the market value of their labor is even higher than yours? It's not their fault they chose the right profession and you didn't.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. I'm not trying to be mean to you but economics is a cold lady.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
no sir. my argument is these are perks
Mar 28, 2014, 12:55 PM
|
|
They currently receive. I'm am not bitter when people get things. .I am bitter when they ignore what they do get and cry for more. ?f my kids are denied access to Clemson I will probably be bitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Bingo***
Mar 28, 2014, 1:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9086]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11326
Joined: 10/15/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [212]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/27/14
|
Re: Thus, if they get paied then the univ. should charge them
Mar 28, 2014, 1:19 PM
|
|
Your comment is definitely common, but I cannot understand why people do not understand the rebuttal to this:
Some college guys actually deserve (in a market sense, not moral) the value of all these perks PLUS cash. A Sammy for example is/was worth all these services plus way more for CU. You may not want to hear this, but people are saying players deserve these free services (which are really not for their own success, they're for the U's success, no different than a stock investment) PLUS some value that is purely their own (whatever endorsements they can earn, maybe a small trust for post-grad life, whatever). The details are in the above links for how this sort of thing should work, but saying "free services OR some money we will immediately take away by making you spend it on previously free services" is not the answer; it's the same bottom line in new clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9086]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11326
Joined: 10/15/99
|
There are athletes who qualify for Pell Grant money which
Mar 28, 2014, 1:43 PM
|
|
could be over $5000 a year. Talked with a previous D1 Asst Basketball coach and he said the parents would be asking, when are they going to get their Pell money. He also said that next time you see a tattoo on a athlete it probably was paid for with Pell money. I agree something needs to be done because the NCAA is a monopoly and the Universities are benefiting big time. The changes need to start at the NCAA because it's one big joke with jokers making allot of money from it.
Actually a decent article from The State rag.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/25/3227489/no-need-to-pay-college-athletes.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [212]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/27/14
|
Re: no sir. my argument is these are perks
Mar 28, 2014, 1:13 PM
[ in reply to no sir. my argument is these are perks ] |
|
I think the crux, though, of what critics of the current system are saying is that these "perks" still do not provide a fair compensation considering the value of the product. If you're Joe Blow at Apple, your salary is a real-time representation of your value, because Apple can modify it as the market dictates.
But the NCAA prevents any adjustments like this (see the stipend muckup). As the value of college athletics has risen, the value provided to players in return has not kept pace (even as demands have increased: more travel time for the geographically stupid conferences, ipads making it possible for coaches to expect guys to watch film everywhere they go, etc) . Then you have the other messy stuff like injured guys losing schollies, and you can see that the system is reflecting reality less and less.
A FB/BB player can't bank that Italy trip for post-college or go to that nutritionist when he's 45, fat, his knees are going and his concussions have eroded his concentration. The perks players get, nice as they are at the time, are not providing a lasting value to a large, large percentage of the recipients. They're meant to increase performance during eligibility, and nothing more. It's easy to paint players as spoiled, but the element of exploitation is unavoidable.
That's why ideas like trust funds for endorsement deals are popping up; players can make money according to their market worth, and the trust prevents abuses of the system while they're in their playing days. It's not all "gimme more now!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81628]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47097
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Re: no sir. my argument is these are perks
Mar 28, 2014, 1:20 PM
|
|
I think the crux, though, of what critics of the current system are saying is that these "perks" still do not provide a fair compensation considering the value of the product. If you're Joe Blow at Apple, your salary is a real-time representation of your value, because Apple can modify it as the market dictates.
No. I make $50k/yr and bring in my company millions of dollars. Meanwhile, my CEO is making well over $2,000,000 plus stocks. Dabo is making well below 40x the equivalent costs of a scholarship football player.
But the NCAA prevents any adjustments like this (see the stipend muckup). As the value of college athletics has risen, the value provided to players in return has not kept pace (even as demands have increased: more travel time for the geographically stupid conferences, ipads making it possible for coaches to expect guys to watch film everywhere they go, etc) . Then you have the other messy stuff like injured guys losing schollies, and you can see that the system is reflecting reality less and less.
Uh...absolutely they have. Look at the state of the art practice facilities and locker rooms that are popping up. Look at the iPads they get, the special computer labs, and study rooms they all have access to. Injured guys losing schollies is incredibly rare, and is a reflection on the University, not the entire system.
A FB/BB player can't bank that Italy trip for post-college or go to that nutritionist when he's 45, fat, his knees are going and his concussions have eroded his concentration. The perks players get, nice as they are at the time, are not providing a lasting value to a large, large percentage of the recipients. They're meant to increase performance during eligibility, and nothing more. It's easy to paint players as spoiled, but the element of exploitation is unavoidable.
How is this relevant to the discussion of paying players? That's exactly how any company works, just because I had a company cell phone at my old job, doesn't mean I have one at my new one.
That's why ideas like trust funds for endorsement deals are popping up; players can make money according to their market worth, and the trust prevents abuses of the system while they're in their playing days. It's not all "gimme more now!"
And what's the number of college athletes that go onto the NFL? Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
to add to your comments
Mar 28, 2014, 1:34 PM
|
|
At our annual merit raises I am given a summary of what I make plus what I an given in insurance subsidies and retirement contributions. This is done to give me an idea of what I am really being given.
Now, if I said, bunk those benefits, our company made 200 billion last year's, I deserve a higher raise. Those benefits don't mean anything. I would probably be fired.
If you are a star athlete this may work, some school well probably pick you up. If you are not, bye bye all those perks that are not perks. Heck, sec coaches are probably drooling over this. Pay to get the best, if they don't work out. .bye... just sign 50 more. They are employees you can hire snd fire at will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: no sir. my argument is these are perks
Mar 28, 2014, 2:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: no sir. my argument is these are perks ] |
|
These kids aren't Joe Blow from apple. They are college kids that are student first as far as the college is concern for an education. They are taught also the fundamentals of FB while getting an education. Should spelling B contestants be payed also. There is a fee charged to get in and watch the competition. College is a school, and not a professional sports market. Colleges across the country should just close down all sporting activities. And we can set back and watch how many kids get into college that are athletic and dirt poor. And watch and see how many make it to the professional league without any college training in these athletic kids sport of choice. Not long after colleges drop athletic sporting events, professional sports will hit rock bottom with the lack of professional athlete that can perform at the level they are now competing with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Your salary is not just a representation of your value
Mar 28, 2014, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: no sir. my argument is these are perks ] |
|
certainly what you bring to the company is a consideration, but companies also allocate the costs that are needed to support you. Companies have services and divisions that are designed to lose money because they support or complement areas that are more profitable. Revenues may or may not be allocated to those areas.
Its not just the football business and its not just the basketball business. Its the Athletic Business. Allocated the cost of the shared overhead spread across numerous sports and administrative functions to each sport and then we can talk "value."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6937]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22594
Joined: 5/4/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
business call, gift from the tooth fairie
Mar 28, 2014, 12:53 PM
|
|
Doesn't matter. It is a free trip to Italy, not offered to all students. In the normal world that is a perk.
I forgot to mention that the reason those monopolies happened were because of unregulated capitalism.
I still remember the debates to lower academic requirements for student athletes. That was a huge advantage to a small population. They were graTeful back then but now they don't even care. I Will still Consider it a perk.
Money is not the absolute Foundation for all things. Man this society is tanking. Thanks a lot jay z.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [72]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 126
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The normal student doesnt get 10K people
Mar 28, 2014, 12:59 PM
|
|
to show up to watch them play basketball games, so, yea Im OK with them getting some extra "perks".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
Re: The normal student doesnt get 10K people***
Mar 28, 2014, 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
this may be true. I can't speak for everyone.
Mar 28, 2014, 1:09 PM
|
|
I can speak only for myself. I do not show up to basketball games to watch kj . I do not show up to football games to see Sammy. I show up to see Clemson.
I posted yesterday that I don't go out of my way to see paid player sports, minor or major. If college sports became some sort of minor league I would probably lose interest. Maybe. .I can't say for sure.
I'm also not against a student athlete union. These kids should have rights, But I would think it would be things like not having to worry about being cut because your speech over signed. Or being able to transfer if the head coach gets fired without sitting out a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [72]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 126
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I agree with that, this
Mar 28, 2014, 1:14 PM
|
|
issue brings out a lot of emotion on both sides, but I do support the abilities of the athletes to get more rights, and probably some more benefits for the revenue sports. Its too bad that the NCAA let it get to this point, they could have handled some of this (for example transfer rights) proactively but chose not to.
I actually think they should be able to transfer after their sophomore year regardless of any coaching change without sitting out a year. They have put in two years at a place, let them transfer like any other student.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: this may be true. I can't speak for everyone.
Mar 28, 2014, 3:07 PM
[ in reply to this may be true. I can't speak for everyone. ] |
|
That is the only reason I go. If I wanted to see the best players the sport has to offer, I would go to a pro game to see that. I go to cheer C L E M S O N, and not K J , or S A M M Y!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned:
Mar 28, 2014, 1:03 PM
|
|
If every one of these athletes were truly students first, there primarily to get a legitimate college education, required to meet the same exact entrance and ongoing academic requirements as every other student, and if the schools truly had the students' academic/educational interest first and foremost, would we even be having this discussion?
I'm not naïve, and I know that ship sailed a long time ago, if it ever even existed at all, but here we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [72]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 126
Joined: 11/30/98
|
This is correct,
Mar 28, 2014, 1:09 PM
|
|
it never should have gotten to this point, but it has, and once the money exploded, its time to pull back the curtains and really re-evaluate how the system works. It would have been nice if the NCAA was proactive in recognizing their issues, but they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Yep.***
Mar 28, 2014, 1:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [202]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 368
Joined: 10/13/02
|
Re: Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned:
Mar 28, 2014, 1:18 PM
[ in reply to Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned: ] |
|
Again, it is real simple. To play in NFL you have 2 choices:
1) 3 years of college and then enter draft
2) sit out 3 years and then get drafted
Now if you choose college you can get a free education and other perks but that is the extent of it. If you do not like this choice then choose plan #2.
How many 18 year old kids leave high school and get a job making $30,000+ right off the bat? The athletes get a value of over that with tuition and room/board plus food stipends so don't say they don't receive anything. If they are there just for athletics, they know the rule and if it isn't what they like then train on your own and go to the league in 3 years.
Now, if you take that risk and don't make it you just lost 3+ years of free education which is worth well over $100,000. If that is not getting paid then I am not sure what is?
Tired of hearing the athletes do not receive anything while in college. They gain admittance under guidelines that are softened so they can get in while regular students who are much better prepared for college are turned away. What if schools decide to make admission universal and all applicants are judged on the same criteria, wonder how those wanting pay would feel? Think they might realize competing as a regular student is tough and maybe they should appreciate what they get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81628]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47097
Joined: 3/18/07
|
I don't understand those saying choice 2 isn't a real choice
Mar 28, 2014, 1:21 PM
|
|
OF COURSE IT IS.
You can either have the NCAA/University pay for you to train (and get a completely free education for you), or you can pay your own way to train.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 2245
Joined: 8/2/02
|
It's simple
Mar 28, 2014, 3:05 PM
|
|
there's no entitlement in choice #2. So it's not an option. You'd rather sit on your ### and gripe all day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned:
Mar 28, 2014, 1:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned: ] |
|
I don't know anything about your degree, but where would you be without it? When you are talking about 2 choices you are not only talking about student-atheletes you are talking about any student. After high school I also had two options.
1) Enter the work force and hope that I could survive on my own merit. This option ends in either stuggling by on 20k-30k a year or hiting it big on your own and making huge amounts of money.
2) Attend a college get a degree and come out ready to make a higher salary.
Atheletes have the same options. Sure it is next to impossible to make it in the NFL without going to college but it is possible. Just like it is possible to make it in todays world without a degree but without companies looking at you it is next to impossible.
When I was attending school and working on my degree I was able to make money off of my future degree but no company is going to pay you market value for your skills before you get your degree. Instead I was able to work for scholarship money and partial compensation to help me pay for my schooling. Just like an athelete gets paid scholarship money and stipends for practicing their sport. I worked for a billion dollar company when I was at Clemson but it didn't matter how much money I brought to them they were not paying me more than an intern rate. After guaduation sure I could be compensated but so to are atheletes when the enter the NFL.
The training I recieved while working for my degree paid off when I graduated and college players are getting the same benifits as student-athelets with the university. To say they deserve more than what is availible to every other student is missing the point of going to college in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned:
Mar 28, 2014, 3:13 PM
[ in reply to Here is what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned: ] |
|
Yep Smiling here we are. Make a major screw up now, and it will take longer than me or you have on this earth to get it fixed, if it will ever be fixed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
College football will either address the player's concerns
Mar 28, 2014, 1:42 PM
|
|
or it will die as we currently know it.
The pie has grown exponentially larger while the players share has not. Everybody works hard at their jobs. Some work harder than football players. That has never been the primary determining factor in how society and a free market values your contribution.
While coaches, universities, and media outlets have seen their revenues from football and basketball sky rocket, the current structure has not provided the players with acceptable consideration. Those that control college football have been slow to adapt. They need to pick up the pace or they will lose influence in the process.
People get ready. There's a change a coming. You don't need no ticket. You just climb on board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: College football will either address the player's concerns
Mar 28, 2014, 2:40 PM
|
|
what everyone keeps ignoring is that it is not just football!! the feminist will be all over this to make sure that women get as much as men! the fact that their sports generate NO REVENUE will not matter to them and the gutless politicians will cave under again just like title #9 when football should have been excluded!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Baseball players will be the first group to cry foul.
Mar 28, 2014, 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
The players share hasn't grown?
Mar 28, 2014, 3:01 PM
[ in reply to College football will either address the player's concerns ] |
|
look at what the players have now compared to what they had 10, 15 and 20 years ago. The level of luxury, amenities, tutors, PR, support staff, weight room facilities, trainers, equipment etc have skyrocketed. All of these things are there certainly for the program to win and generate more revenue, but also to make sure that player has the ability to increase his marketable skills (whether that be on the field or not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11/27/11
|
Your name says it all. When founded, the IPTAY fund was for
Mar 28, 2014, 3:11 PM
|
|
the athletic department. "I pay ten a year." They only needed $10,000 to make a big difference. That was the goal. Now memberships come in a variety of tiers, some over $10K a year. Absolutely the cost of doing business has gone up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's obviously not what I said. The players share has
Mar 28, 2014, 3:31 PM
[ in reply to The players share hasn't grown? ] |
|
not grown anywhere near the rate at which the other shares have grown.
Regardless, it doesn't really matter. Arguing whether or not they deserve it is fruitless.
The players don't think they are getting a fair share and either the NCAA and colleges understand and adapt and get ahead of the curve on this or they will lose their influence on the outcome and it won't be to their liking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: That's obviously not what I said. The players share has
Mar 28, 2014, 3:40 PM
|
|
No the Universities and NCAA can easily say either you like it or you will not be attending a member institution. None of theses players have to be accepted to any of these schools and the sooner they realize it is a privilege the sooner we put this behind us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They can do that and watch their product quality go down.
Mar 28, 2014, 3:51 PM
|
|
Like college baseball and basketball. If they don't change, you will probably see one and dones and an NFL developmental league and the best players will go there and get paid and just focus on their craft.
An alternative will emerge if the NCAA and universities remain so hard headed and it won't make college football better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: They can do that and watch their product quality go down.
Mar 28, 2014, 4:19 PM
|
|
That is fine with me. The quality may go down but the game will remain the same. I love Clemson University and I want what is best for the University not the game as a whole. 5 years ago no one was making 20 million a year in TV revenue. I loved the game then and will continue to love it in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I would rather they make some changes that maintain or
Mar 28, 2014, 4:45 PM
|
|
improves the quality of college football. It won't hurt my feelings if football and basketball players get a little bit of money in addition to their scholarships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
I disagree that their share isn't growing at the same rate
Mar 28, 2014, 3:48 PM
[ in reply to That's obviously not what I said. The players share has ] |
|
In fact, if you count the increased cost of tuition, books etc that their share hasn't grown as a percentage MORE than the other areas. Sure coaches salaries have doubled and tripled over the last 20 years or so. But so has tuition which is a direct value of their scholarship.
Those player lounges and support facilities have grown and they are there almost exclusively for the players. That is one of the largest expenditures for programs over the last decade of this "arms race."
I think where the "fair share" argument falls is that the football and basketball players believe that they are individual corporations. They are the revenue side of the organization, but not the only aspect of the organization. In a large corporation with many divisions, which is more important the sales side or the production side? you can't have 1 without the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not even close.***
Mar 28, 2014, 3:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
There is a big change coming, but prolly not what you think
Mar 28, 2014, 3:33 PM
[ in reply to College football will either address the player's concerns ] |
|
It's online education.
The traditional four year institution on a campus will become a dinosaur, esp as students and their parents start evaluating what the return is on what they are paying.
College tuition is in a bubble. It will burst soon.
Also, TV contracts will change as more and more give up cable/sat tv for internet based tv. I've already done it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Regardless of how the content is delivered, the
Mar 28, 2014, 3:41 PM
|
|
company that owns the broadcasting rights of the content you want to watch will have to be paid. The number of eyes on the content will go up and affect the price individuals pay for the content, but broadcasting rights to football and basketball games aren't going down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Lots of flaws here bud
Mar 28, 2014, 1:54 PM
|
|
"At the majority of schools, if a FB/BB player is a marginal student but an excellent player, is he going to get his opportunities and every advantage? Surely. But if he's a marginal (or injured) talent and a great student? He is at risk to lose his scholly. This fact alone proves that the name of the game for these guys is sports, not school."
How many folks actually lose their scholly due to being injured or being marginal? As a total percentage of schollies offered? 1%? That proves nothing.
To not call those "extra" things perks is simply not true. Google caters food to attract the best talent. Same reason some companies offer health insurance, company cars, pension plans, 401k matches, cell phone allowances, etc. They are perks. No doubt they are. It's the universities way of giving them maximum benefit while staying within what constitutes amateurism.
I would also encourage you to look at CFB as a whole. Not just the cash cows in the South, USC, Texas, Ohio State, etc. As a whole, CFB doesn't generate THAT much money for schools. Again, factor in FCS, DII, and DIII programs.
You mention among your "facts" that college sports is a business. Are you referring to elite football and basketball teams within certain colleges? Because as a whole most college sports result in a LOSS for the university. Fact: Most ADs report a loss each year.
Back to the cost of attending NW. If I send my child there I will absolutely have to pay the "made up" price of $45k/year assuming this is in fact the advertised price to attend. This fact has nothing to do with what others pay or don't pay. I nor my child will qualify for financial aid, and likely won't receive a scholly.
So my choices for my child: send and pay or don't send and don't pay.
Choices for an athlete on scholly at NW that isn't being paid: Accept and attend and receive no pay or don't accept, don't attend, and do something else. Seems simple to me.
And I'll go out on a limb and say that NW's football program is probably not generating enough in profit to afford paying their football players, let alone anyone else.
One more thing: Your opening paragraph says you are going to throw out some facts. I'll reread your OP but I don't think a single fact followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [379]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 428
Joined: 2/2/01
|
Re: Lots of flaws here bud
Mar 28, 2014, 7:37 PM
|
|
Finally! A voice of reason!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: A Serious Discussion About Unions/Paying Players (long)
Mar 28, 2014, 2:13 PM
|
|
Hey F-B, I'm one of the people that said if these college players are walking around with pockets full of money that the drug dealer would be moving in. My grandson is 12 years old now, but last year when he was spending the summer with me. I was talking to him about the good and bad things in life B/C he dad was killed when he was 9. I was telling to stay away from the people that do drugs, steal, use real bad language and so forth. He interrupted me and told me that kids his age I tell you was selling weed to the other kids. So if the dealers are having or letting their kids sell the poison in middle school, you have to be an idiot to think or believe that they won't move in on college campuses with just a few years older kids with pockets full of money. And that is saying if these athlete get their fare share as a lot of folks say they deserve. I maybe a fool for a lot of things, but I'm not such a fool to believe that it won't happen around colleges in a much larger medium for the sales of illegal and prescription drugs. Drug dealer won't bother with moving in for a couple hundred dollars a month allowance. But would take a real big fool to believe that they wouldn't dare come in with thousands in the pockets of border line kids/young adults. And yes I do believe that lots of money on a college campus would poison 60 to 70% of the campus population. Nickle and dime bags are already being bought in middle school. But for all we know now, they may not get more than a few dollars more than now. But lastly, colleges aren't making these huge profits that people believe they are making. If they were, you would see stadium like the Dallas Cowboys play in at the college level. TV markets are making the mega buck from college FB with advertizing, and colleges most likely get only 1 to 2% of what the conferences are selling the viewing rights for. Colleges are not getting fat from college sports IMO....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30190]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31797
Joined: 9/13/01
|
Dude - college is where drugs are rampant
Mar 28, 2014, 2:15 PM
|
|
You want it - you can get it at college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 2245
Joined: 8/2/02
|
too many holes in your 'theory'
Mar 28, 2014, 2:35 PM
|
|
you have a grand misperception of business and economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14233]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13983
Joined: 2/8/11
|
Only liberals and communists side with the NCAA***
Mar 28, 2014, 2:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81628]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47097
Joined: 3/18/07
|
You've already made it clear you would like to see the
Mar 28, 2014, 2:46 PM
|
|
complete dismantling of all sports that do not generate revenue.
That would leave about 40 college football schools that actually make money.
Maybe 30 college basketball schools that make money.
Say goodbye to soccer, golf, tennis, track, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11/27/11
|
Yes. Let's break this down politically...
Mar 28, 2014, 3:05 PM
[ in reply to Only liberals and communists side with the NCAA*** ] |
|
I see a lot of gun toting proud republicans siding with the NCAA on this board. I'm not a "liberal" or a "communist." Casting ultimatum insults will get you no where. George W Bush sounded like an idiot when he did it too. The truth is MANY of us can see where this is headed and how it will destroy college sports (not just football) as a whole and we love college sports. We don't want to see it destroyed because a some smart-alec kids decided that "the boys at the top are making tons of cash. We should get more!"
At any real corporation, you will most likely bring in far more to your company than you get paid. Most times, what you do to bring in that money doesn't get you free training to improve (it does in some companies), mas exposure to competitors who will pay you a ton more when this contract is up (again, some companies are an exception), or a free college education with room and board included. Demanding a bigger piece of the pie because the company makes more than you realized when you signed your employment agreement will get you laughed at most of the time, if not out-right fired (note, new students coming in next year should be making these demands, not the students currently here). Politics doesn't even play into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
Politics make for strange bedfellows indeed.
Mar 28, 2014, 3:25 PM
|
|
I hate the NCAA, I think they are a bunch of communists. WHich they probably are, esp if you look at the political leanings on college campi.
But I am against unionization of anything and calling college players 'employees'. They aren't.
But this is just about envy. How dare they make a lot of money! I want some!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
If the NFL had a minor league to develop players on their
Mar 28, 2014, 3:20 PM
|
|
dime, like baseball, then this would essentially solve itself. Coll FB would look a lot like coll baseball, mostly white kids who want to play while in college but not likely to go pro.
I submit that most of us would still buy tickets and go to games, though attendance and viewership would drop around the country.
But if anybody's getting the free ride here, it's the NFL. They have a free minor league system.
As for the players, it's hard to argue "exploitation" when every kid and his brother is clamoring for a chance to play. Noone's holding a gun to anyone's head.
Also, the venue to display their talent for the NFL is provided for them free. WIthout college football, nobody knows who these kids are or what they can do.
AND, if it turns out they aren't good enough (usually the case) then they have a college degree (if they took school seriously) and can get a regular job.
But the union thing is whole 'nother cannaworms. What about right-to-work states? It's a melding of sports with politics which makes for a bad mix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [932]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1544
Joined: 6/4/12
|
Does
Mar 28, 2014, 4:54 PM
|
|
Anyone look at the big picture here? It's 2014 and here we are talking about paying college football and basketball players, bogging down an already diluted college sport(s) with litigation that is going to begin to stir the "class warfare" pot. Most of these athletes are African American, and most, not all, benefit from reduced academic standards to get in, and a weaker course load once on campus. Case in point former scar star Eric Norwood had a 1.9 core gpa in high school. They found a way to push him through so he got in. Once he was on campus he was on the dean's list at scar. Another example was with the UNC football players that were shown to read and write at an elementary school level. Does this send a message to devalue education even more than the majority already do?
Long story short we are ignoring the enormous issue of concussions, which the nfl covered up for years, now, we are devaluing even MORE student athletes education. The ones that see the value in education are more hesitant to step up and say "pay me".
This will change everything about college sports if it goes through. I would love for someone to pay me more on top of my tax free pell grant on top of reduced academic standards to be a high status football player on campus, while baseball, women's sports etc put the same work in and get nothing(except higher academic standards since they need academic money to offset PARTIAL scholarships).
Is it me or is there an idiocracy apocalypse upon us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 56
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
