6/16/2011 12:26 AM
Endorsement deals for sure.  Woulda been cool to watch the recent NCAA title game of team Under Armour vs team Nike with Cam Newton sportin an Addidas logo. 
6/16/2011 1:36 AM
The time line of high profile college athletes starts at the HS intent stage. With most high visability players belonging to football and basketball programs, some players are chosing schools that will be able to promote them to a greater extent than others. A potential Heisman contender will pick an elite school for its TV coverage and Bowl possibilities. As he (or she with women's basketball) progresses with their career, his talent and the school's success become interdependent. The example of Cam Newton/Auburn highlights the fact a star player makes a school a National Champion and both acheive recognition by being in the spotlight. However - Auburn was able to benefit financially from Cam Newton while he was there, while Cam Newton was not legally (under NCAA rules) able to financially benefit from his notoriety. I'm not specifically saying that each player on a team should be paid a "salary" for playing as many do not - by themselves - generate enough income to repay their 4 year scholarship or the value of their education. However, the few that are made celebrities either locally or nationally should be able to market themselves as a reward of their achievement. (Similar to the previous argument of the English major on scholarship due to their academic/writing skills not being able to profit from the creation of a best seller). Don't pay them for playing, but let them prosper from the name they have made from their successful efforts.
6/16/2011 1:59 AM (edited)
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 12:23:00 AM (view original):
So... it is only because football and basketball programs make tons of money that they are obligated to share their revenue with their players.  It is only because some set of university employees (ADs, coaches, presidents, etc) are getting very rich that the normal scholarship arrangement for these players is unfair.  Its not about fairness amongst the athletes.  The programs that do not make enough money are not obligated to share their revenue, right? 

Where does the line of entitlement get drawn?  Is it every football program?  Just the profitable ones?  Is it the ones who pay their coach at least a million dollars?  Is it the programs that have enough profit to re-invest into school infrastructures?  Is it the ones that have had a player drafted in the NFL within the past 5 years?  How much should the kids get paid?  You think it should be from state sources or are you going to let the alumni decide how much financial power the university can wield?  I assume you are endorsing the players as being employees of the college and dropping the illusion of the student-athlete.  Are they allowed to attend classes at all?  Won't they need some sort of player's union?  How would a player's union even work if the players are only committed to the union for 2-4 years and then they are gone?

Face it: paying the players won't work.  Your examples of Cam Newton, OJ Mayo, SMU are all excellent examples of schools and alumni cheating.  That doesn't mean that the student-athlete concept can't/doesn't work, that it isn't fair.   If these kids were really worth the big money that the schools make, the NFL (or someone with deep pockets) would set up a farm league to get those players in, get them paid, and start profiting from their unique talents.  But they aren't worth all that, are they?  Not really.  It is the college branding that makes college football the big sell that it is.  Its not Cam Newton that made Auburn profitable, its the Auburn alumni.  Its not the lousy Texas team that they fielded that made them profitable, its the die-hard Longhorn fans that made them profitable.  Yeah, the kids think its them, even some adults!  Sure they think they are entitled to at least part of the profits.  But its not... its all about the universities.  The NFL knows it.  The NCAA knows it.  And now, you know it.

So jump on a different bandwagon.  Relax some of the amateur status rules... let the kids sell their crap, let them sign endorsement deals, don't worry about what they drive.  I'm fine with all that.  But please don't keep beating the drum about how they need to be paid.  They signed up as student-athletes, are treated like rock stars, but have no claim to any part of the school's revenue stream.
The Auburn alumni made Cam Newton profitable?  If Cam Newton was an NCAA free agent coming out of JC, what would have been the price for his services in a free market?  No BS, how much would a school pay for his services?  The prestige and value of 1 year of an Auburn education?  Really?

My point is not that schools should cut checks to each and every athlete.  If you start from the premise that NCAA athletes are properly compensated by the traditional package (scholie, room, board), the REAL argument is how much is the proper compensation for each athlete.  Not whether or not they should be compensated.  I am just disgusted by the hypocrisy.  It's a big cash cow....let every deserving person profit as an individual based on what the market dictates.

Listen, I own a business.  But as a wise man once said, "Bulll$hit is Bull$hit and business is business.  If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense."  If the NCAA had some sort of mandatory academic testing that each athlete had to complete each year to continue playing, I would reconsider the argument about the student-athlete mission.  If there were criminal penalties under State law for giving money to an "amateur" athlete, I would reconsider whether state-funded institutions were truly committed to "pure" amateur student-athlete.  But there's just not.  It's about generating money.

A "professional" farm league for pro football would have to compete with the NCAA.  And an NCAA filled with schools that are largely state-funded, huge cash reserves and one that have decades of a head start.  Moreover, an NCAA that turns a blind eye to payments and benefits to athletes.  It just won't happen.

Long story short...just lift the false veil.  For some athletes, the NCAA provides an opportunity to play a sport a person enjoys and they get a degree.  For others, it is simply a training ground for a shot to go pro.  The latter view, something institutions prey and profit on.  To me, the NCAA and schools have shown that the key mission is profit.  If that's the case, let everyone profit.   

Nobody is tuning in to watch Ivy league games or a DIII clash between St. John Fisher and St. Lawrence.


6/16/2011 3:16 AM
Because neither the NFL nor anyone else will fund the losing venture of a minor league football system doesn't mean the NCAA is obligated to act as one.  

Students athletes are only marketable because of the foundation laid by the program, athletic department and school.  These current athletes didn't lay down 100+ years of history and tradition, and it is these things that give the athlete value.  By themselves, the athletes have no value to a school.  See if Cam Newton could get anywhere near the reported $180k his father asked for if he tried that with Yale or Dartmouth or any other school who chose not to spend the monies to be in D1A.  You could make a strong argument that football players who are only at a school to make it to the NFL should pay the school (over and above tuition) for the exposure, facilities, coaching and support staff.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all to not pay players.  But, if you want to end all this crap about paying players under the table, go ahead and blame the NCAA, I do.  If they had a strict zero tolerance for players taking money/benefits which led to the automatic firing of the head coach the problem would solve itself.  
6/16/2011 6:24 AM
Posted by potter444 on 6/16/2011 1:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 12:23:00 AM (view original):
So... it is only because football and basketball programs make tons of money that they are obligated to share their revenue with their players.  It is only because some set of university employees (ADs, coaches, presidents, etc) are getting very rich that the normal scholarship arrangement for these players is unfair.  Its not about fairness amongst the athletes.  The programs that do not make enough money are not obligated to share their revenue, right? 

Where does the line of entitlement get drawn?  Is it every football program?  Just the profitable ones?  Is it the ones who pay their coach at least a million dollars?  Is it the programs that have enough profit to re-invest into school infrastructures?  Is it the ones that have had a player drafted in the NFL within the past 5 years?  How much should the kids get paid?  You think it should be from state sources or are you going to let the alumni decide how much financial power the university can wield?  I assume you are endorsing the players as being employees of the college and dropping the illusion of the student-athlete.  Are they allowed to attend classes at all?  Won't they need some sort of player's union?  How would a player's union even work if the players are only committed to the union for 2-4 years and then they are gone?

Face it: paying the players won't work.  Your examples of Cam Newton, OJ Mayo, SMU are all excellent examples of schools and alumni cheating.  That doesn't mean that the student-athlete concept can't/doesn't work, that it isn't fair.   If these kids were really worth the big money that the schools make, the NFL (or someone with deep pockets) would set up a farm league to get those players in, get them paid, and start profiting from their unique talents.  But they aren't worth all that, are they?  Not really.  It is the college branding that makes college football the big sell that it is.  Its not Cam Newton that made Auburn profitable, its the Auburn alumni.  Its not the lousy Texas team that they fielded that made them profitable, its the die-hard Longhorn fans that made them profitable.  Yeah, the kids think its them, even some adults!  Sure they think they are entitled to at least part of the profits.  But its not... its all about the universities.  The NFL knows it.  The NCAA knows it.  And now, you know it.

So jump on a different bandwagon.  Relax some of the amateur status rules... let the kids sell their crap, let them sign endorsement deals, don't worry about what they drive.  I'm fine with all that.  But please don't keep beating the drum about how they need to be paid.  They signed up as student-athletes, are treated like rock stars, but have no claim to any part of the school's revenue stream.
The Auburn alumni made Cam Newton profitable?  If Cam Newton was an NCAA free agent coming out of JC, what would have been the price for his services in a free market?  No BS, how much would a school pay for his services?  The prestige and value of 1 year of an Auburn education?  Really?

My point is not that schools should cut checks to each and every athlete.  If you start from the premise that NCAA athletes are properly compensated by the traditional package (scholie, room, board), the REAL argument is how much is the proper compensation for each athlete.  Not whether or not they should be compensated.  I am just disgusted by the hypocrisy.  It's a big cash cow....let every deserving person profit as an individual based on what the market dictates.

Listen, I own a business.  But as a wise man once said, "Bulll$hit is Bull$hit and business is business.  If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense."  If the NCAA had some sort of mandatory academic testing that each athlete had to complete each year to continue playing, I would reconsider the argument about the student-athlete mission.  If there were criminal penalties under State law for giving money to an "amateur" athlete, I would reconsider whether state-funded institutions were truly committed to "pure" amateur student-athlete.  But there's just not.  It's about generating money.

A "professional" farm league for pro football would have to compete with the NCAA.  And an NCAA filled with schools that are largely state-funded, huge cash reserves and one that have decades of a head start.  Moreover, an NCAA that turns a blind eye to payments and benefits to athletes.  It just won't happen.

Long story short...just lift the false veil.  For some athletes, the NCAA provides an opportunity to play a sport a person enjoys and they get a degree.  For others, it is simply a training ground for a shot to go pro.  The latter view, something institutions prey and profit on.  To me, the NCAA and schools have shown that the key mission is profit.  If that's the case, let everyone profit.   

Nobody is tuning in to watch Ivy league games or a DIII clash between St. John Fisher and St. Lawrence.


And I totally disagree with you.  Football and basketball fund Archery and Lacrosse and all the other sports that are not money makers.  They fund the athletic playing and practice facilities.

Only 5 of 128 Div-1A schools actually made money on athletics and no one below Div-1A did.

There is no money unless you take each sport individually.

Yes, the big name Div-1A football teams make money.  If that was split from everything else, you could pay only Div-1A football players some amount of real money.

Basketball makes much less money than football at almost every school.  There is not a whole lot of cash there.

Nothing else makes money.

As an example, read this article:

Fan Fare - Paying College Athletes is not as Easy as it Seems

Look at what they say about Eastern Kentucky:

To illustrate why, Sandy says suppose the "cost of attendance" stipend was $100 a month for 10 months of the year.

"We have around 350 athletes," the EKU AD says. "That's a $350,000 expense in a $12 million budget. That's 3 percent of our total budget at a $100 (a month). What if the stipend was more? Either way, I don't know how schools at our level would afford it."

Now, if you made it $10,000 (10 months, $1,000) then it would be 30% of the total althletic budget to pay players ... no way anyone other than the super large 1A programs could pay players even $10,000 ... and paying what you think they should pay is not even in the realm of possibility unless you pay football players more than Lacrosse players.  And that is certainly not fair for a public university to do.  Now private universities, maybe, but not public, state controlled, colleges and universities.


6/16/2011 11:55 AM
Posted by hughesjr on 6/16/2011 6:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/16/2011 1:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 12:23:00 AM (view original):
So... it is only because football and basketball programs make tons of money that they are obligated to share their revenue with their players.  It is only because some set of university employees (ADs, coaches, presidents, etc) are getting very rich that the normal scholarship arrangement for these players is unfair.  Its not about fairness amongst the athletes.  The programs that do not make enough money are not obligated to share their revenue, right? 

Where does the line of entitlement get drawn?  Is it every football program?  Just the profitable ones?  Is it the ones who pay their coach at least a million dollars?  Is it the programs that have enough profit to re-invest into school infrastructures?  Is it the ones that have had a player drafted in the NFL within the past 5 years?  How much should the kids get paid?  You think it should be from state sources or are you going to let the alumni decide how much financial power the university can wield?  I assume you are endorsing the players as being employees of the college and dropping the illusion of the student-athlete.  Are they allowed to attend classes at all?  Won't they need some sort of player's union?  How would a player's union even work if the players are only committed to the union for 2-4 years and then they are gone?

Face it: paying the players won't work.  Your examples of Cam Newton, OJ Mayo, SMU are all excellent examples of schools and alumni cheating.  That doesn't mean that the student-athlete concept can't/doesn't work, that it isn't fair.   If these kids were really worth the big money that the schools make, the NFL (or someone with deep pockets) would set up a farm league to get those players in, get them paid, and start profiting from their unique talents.  But they aren't worth all that, are they?  Not really.  It is the college branding that makes college football the big sell that it is.  Its not Cam Newton that made Auburn profitable, its the Auburn alumni.  Its not the lousy Texas team that they fielded that made them profitable, its the die-hard Longhorn fans that made them profitable.  Yeah, the kids think its them, even some adults!  Sure they think they are entitled to at least part of the profits.  But its not... its all about the universities.  The NFL knows it.  The NCAA knows it.  And now, you know it.

So jump on a different bandwagon.  Relax some of the amateur status rules... let the kids sell their crap, let them sign endorsement deals, don't worry about what they drive.  I'm fine with all that.  But please don't keep beating the drum about how they need to be paid.  They signed up as student-athletes, are treated like rock stars, but have no claim to any part of the school's revenue stream.
The Auburn alumni made Cam Newton profitable?  If Cam Newton was an NCAA free agent coming out of JC, what would have been the price for his services in a free market?  No BS, how much would a school pay for his services?  The prestige and value of 1 year of an Auburn education?  Really?

My point is not that schools should cut checks to each and every athlete.  If you start from the premise that NCAA athletes are properly compensated by the traditional package (scholie, room, board), the REAL argument is how much is the proper compensation for each athlete.  Not whether or not they should be compensated.  I am just disgusted by the hypocrisy.  It's a big cash cow....let every deserving person profit as an individual based on what the market dictates.

Listen, I own a business.  But as a wise man once said, "Bulll$hit is Bull$hit and business is business.  If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense."  If the NCAA had some sort of mandatory academic testing that each athlete had to complete each year to continue playing, I would reconsider the argument about the student-athlete mission.  If there were criminal penalties under State law for giving money to an "amateur" athlete, I would reconsider whether state-funded institutions were truly committed to "pure" amateur student-athlete.  But there's just not.  It's about generating money.

A "professional" farm league for pro football would have to compete with the NCAA.  And an NCAA filled with schools that are largely state-funded, huge cash reserves and one that have decades of a head start.  Moreover, an NCAA that turns a blind eye to payments and benefits to athletes.  It just won't happen.

Long story short...just lift the false veil.  For some athletes, the NCAA provides an opportunity to play a sport a person enjoys and they get a degree.  For others, it is simply a training ground for a shot to go pro.  The latter view, something institutions prey and profit on.  To me, the NCAA and schools have shown that the key mission is profit.  If that's the case, let everyone profit.   

Nobody is tuning in to watch Ivy league games or a DIII clash between St. John Fisher and St. Lawrence.


And I totally disagree with you.  Football and basketball fund Archery and Lacrosse and all the other sports that are not money makers.  They fund the athletic playing and practice facilities.

Only 5 of 128 Div-1A schools actually made money on athletics and no one below Div-1A did.

There is no money unless you take each sport individually.

Yes, the big name Div-1A football teams make money.  If that was split from everything else, you could pay only Div-1A football players some amount of real money.

Basketball makes much less money than football at almost every school.  There is not a whole lot of cash there.

Nothing else makes money.

As an example, read this article:

Fan Fare - Paying College Athletes is not as Easy as it Seems

Look at what they say about Eastern Kentucky:

To illustrate why, Sandy says suppose the "cost of attendance" stipend was $100 a month for 10 months of the year.

"We have around 350 athletes," the EKU AD says. "That's a $350,000 expense in a $12 million budget. That's 3 percent of our total budget at a $100 (a month). What if the stipend was more? Either way, I don't know how schools at our level would afford it."

Now, if you made it $10,000 (10 months, $1,000) then it would be 30% of the total althletic budget to pay players ... no way anyone other than the super large 1A programs could pay players even $10,000 ... and paying what you think they should pay is not even in the realm of possibility unless you pay football players more than Lacrosse players.  And that is certainly not fair for a public university to do.  Now private universities, maybe, but not public, state controlled, colleges and universities.


Nobody is suggesting archers and rowers be paid a stipend, just men's basketball players and football players.

6/16/2011 12:19 PM (edited)
Again, the schools are not the minor leagues for professional sports.  They are part of schools that have much larger mandates.  You cannot pay just men's basketball and football players.  You would have to pay the same number of and amount to female athletes based on Title IX.  I don't know the intricacies of Title IX, but I would guess that you would have to pay all athletes the same amount.  Failure to comply with Title IX means the loss of access to billions of dollars of federal funding.  That is part of the larger mandate of schools, who are not in the business of simply producing athletes for the next level of play.
6/16/2011 1:50 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Again, the schools are not the minor leagues for professional sports.  They are part of schools that have much larger mandates.  You cannot pay just men's basketball and football players.  You would have to pay the same number of and amount to female athletes based on Title IX.  I don't know the intricacies of Title IX, but I would guess that you would have to pay all athletes the same amount.  Failure to comply with Title IX means the loss of access to billions of dollars of federal funding.  That is part of the larger mandate of schools, who are not in the business of simply producing athletes for the next level of play.
The schools have set up themselves up as minor leagues for pro sports franchises but receive major league dollars for the media rights to broadcast men's basketball and football. You could pay the players a stipend directly from the funding they receive from their media deals rather than public dollars. The rest of the athletes in men's minor sports and women's sports should be grateful their programs get funded by those two sports.

Reform won't happen until more high school stars decide to start going to Europe to play as pros while waiting for their NBA draft eligiblity and the former college stars win their lawsuit against the NCAA and EA Sports over use of their images, Until then, people like you will continue to gasp and tubthump about how these lazy, uppity athletes have let down their schools by accepting illicit payments and failing to take advantage of a scholarship to an education that many of them were ill equipped to deal with when they arrived on campus.

It's highly entertaining to listen to lectures from hypocrites who defend the current system and absolve schools and coaches who earn millions and millions of dollars, while demonizing these kids. They might not be small-minded bigots but they sure sound like them. 

Oh and any notion that the NCAA will drop a death penalty hammer on the likes of Ohio State is delusional. I've got some experience in that world and the networks will quickly put a stop to that talk. They may lose a few schollies but there's no chance we'll see regulators gut a major revenue maker given the size of current media deals. It would be full-time employment program for litigators.

In the meantime, we'll endure the status quo and calls from fat-assed, pasty-rumped alums about Terrell Pryor's ingratitude, uppitiness, blah, blah, blah and continue to hear apologists of the current system wax righteous about sanctity of a college education. I guess I'll just suspend my disbelief with the rest of you until the NCAA gets hammered on the O'Bannon lawsuit. Then we can all have a highminded discussions about how greedy players should have taken advantage of their education rather than pester their alma maters for video game royalties. What. A. Joke.
6/16/2011 3:11 PM
The schools have set up themselves up as minor leagues for pro sports franchises but receive major league dollars for the media rights to broadcast men's basketball and football. This is incorrect.  The NFL came around far after collegiate football.  The NFL set themselves up to benefit from the NCAA, not the other way around.  If the NFL wants to pay players at that age, they are free to set up their own minor league system.  You could pay the players a stipend directly from the funding they receive from their media deals rather than public dollars. The rest of the athletes in men's minor sports and women's sports should be grateful their programs get funded by those two sports.  Again, you fail to realize the broader mandate of schools.  You either pay everyone or you lose access to billions in federal funding.  The athletic departments are but small potatoes when it comes to overall budget and an overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money.

Reform won't happen until more high school stars decide to start going to Europe to play as pros while waiting for their NBA draft eligiblity and the former college stars win their lawsuit against the NCAA and EA Sports over use of their images, Until then, people like you will continue to gasp and tubthump about how these lazy, uppity athletes have let down their schools by accepting illicit payments and failing to take advantage of a scholarship to an education that many of them were ill equipped to deal with when they arrived on campus.  Yes, I will.  I expect my school to conduct itself with a certain dignity, as do most alumni who have any kind of pride about where they received their degree.  Since the sports programs are part of the school, I feel they should represent the school with the same dignity.

Nobody forces the players to accept a scholarship.  If they are ill equipped to take advantage of their free education, that's on them.  They should have studied in high school.  When they accept a scholarship, they accept the rules that come along with it.  You don't follow the rules, you get penalized.  I think it's fine if athletes want to pursue their careers outside of the NCAA if they want to.  But the NCAA has no obligation to change it's rules to allow these very, very few athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics.

IMO, if you have a zero tolerance policy for cheating that removes the player and fires the head coach, the problems will solve themselves.  Coaches will recruit players who are less likely to break rules to keep their jobs.  Players will actually work to become academically qualified to take advantage of their scholarships and walk the straight and narrow to keep their eligibility.  Boosters will be less likely to entice players with illegal benefits if they value their coach.  

 
6/16/2011 3:31 PM
slider:   What is not realized is that most athletic departments do not make a profit.   Less than 10 show a profit in each of the past 5 years.  But, more than triple that show losses more often than not.    Where do they expect the money to come from?   If they say football, than how do you pay for the program(s), expenses, etc. it would have otherwise gone to that they would still have to pay?   What happens when other athletes demand equal treatment?  Where do you get more money?   How about the student whose research bring in more money through grants?   What happens when they ask for money?  Where will it come from?  

And we have not even covered competitive balance.   The Texas's, Michigan's Ohio State's are more likely in a better position to pay players than say the Northwesterns, Colorados, or even Eastern Michigans or Louisiana Lafayettes.    Paying players, IMO would lead to an exodus out of D1A, cancellation of other sports, increased tuition, increased ticket prices.    Why should everyone else have to foot the bill for a small percentage of students?  Other students have hardships too.  
6/16/2011 4:56 PM
I've already brought up the dismal state of athletic department finances earlier.  To no avail.  I haven't even brought up the dismal state of public school finances.  Title IX and federal funding has also been brought up.  To no avail.  Graduate students and federal research grants has already been brought up.  To no avail.  I don't believe competitive balance has been brought up.  But seeing how the argument is that only sports that make money should pay their athletes, most athletic departments should be shut down anyway since most of them lose money.  Along with most school departments aside from Business, Economics and select hard sciences since none of them receive enough grant money to be self sufficient.  

The argument is that football makes money so football players should get paid.  End of story.  It's myopic to say the least.  Other sports, the schools themselves and taxpayers (both public and private schools receive federal monies) should all foot the bill so that the chosen few who don't like the rules can get paid. 
 
6/16/2011 5:02 PM
Posted by trobone on 6/8/2011 4:15:00 AM (view original):
if the kids want to get paid they have that chance. go to europe or canada and sign on with a team. If Pryor wanted money, he could have had it. But he wanted his cake and to eat it too, and he can't have that. If he wanted to stay in the USA and go to OSU, then he knew the rules. If he wanted the money, he had the chances.

they get paid stipends, books, education, travel, clothing, food, etc... in all athletes get paid tens of thousands of dollars a year without any marketable skills except being good at a high school sports. In essence they are raking it in when more deserving 18 year old are doing much more and getting absolutely nothing.

jamal charles signed his contract, if he doesn't like it, that's his problem. he should have signed a shorter one then.
Did someone say....."Chocolate cake" ?????/  Mmmmmmm
6/16/2011 5:49 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 3:11:00 PM (view original):
The schools have set up themselves up as minor leagues for pro sports franchises but receive major league dollars for the media rights to broadcast men's basketball and football. This is incorrect.  The NFL came around far after collegiate football.  The NFL set themselves up to benefit from the NCAA, not the other way around.  If the NFL wants to pay players at that age, they are free to set up their own minor league system.  You could pay the players a stipend directly from the funding they receive from their media deals rather than public dollars. The rest of the athletes in men's minor sports and women's sports should be grateful their programs get funded by those two sports.  Again, you fail to realize the broader mandate of schools.  You either pay everyone or you lose access to billions in federal funding.  The athletic departments are but small potatoes when it comes to overall budget and an overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money.

Reform won't happen until more high school stars decide to start going to Europe to play as pros while waiting for their NBA draft eligiblity and the former college stars win their lawsuit against the NCAA and EA Sports over use of their images, Until then, people like you will continue to gasp and tubthump about how these lazy, uppity athletes have let down their schools by accepting illicit payments and failing to take advantage of a scholarship to an education that many of them were ill equipped to deal with when they arrived on campus.  Yes, I will.  I expect my school to conduct itself with a certain dignity, as do most alumni who have any kind of pride about where they received their degree.  Since the sports programs are part of the school, I feel they should represent the school with the same dignity.

Nobody forces the players to accept a scholarship.  If they are ill equipped to take advantage of their free education, that's on them.  They should have studied in high school.  When they accept a scholarship, they accept the rules that come along with it.  You don't follow the rules, you get penalized.  I think it's fine if athletes want to pursue their careers outside of the NCAA if they want to.  But the NCAA has no obligation to change it's rules to allow these very, very few athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics.

IMO, if you have a zero tolerance policy for cheating that removes the player and fires the head coach, the problems will solve themselves.  Coaches will recruit players who are less likely to break rules to keep their jobs.  Players will actually work to become academically qualified to take advantage of their scholarships and walk the straight and narrow to keep their eligibility.  Boosters will be less likely to entice players with illegal benefits if they value their coach.  

 

Reid,

1. The NFL and NBA might have started after college sports but these programs have evolved into that role. You can acknowledge or ignore it but that's reality.

2. The reforms necessary to fix collegiate sports also involve some changes to Title IX.

3, You might expect your school to conduct itself with dignity. Many people who've commented on this subject hold the athletes to a different standard. All this talk about Pryor bringing down the program and bringing down Tressel is nauseating and betrays a bigoted mindset. Those folks certainly weren't well served by their college education.

4. As long as the current system exists, there will be schools who offer under-the-table inducements, coaches who look the other way and athletes who accept them. If you are comfortable with that, that's fine. But spare me noise about increased enforcement and penalties. Increased penalties don't stop people from committing crimes. They only work for the law-abiding. People will break the rules if they think they don't get caught. They might hold up a few kids as part of show trials and the odd coach will have to fall on their sword but you cannot make serious reforms without discussing some form of renumeration to the athletes. As long as the cash continues to be infused into a game where you have "amateur" athletes, you'll have this problem. It's no different than hookers in oil towns. The cash creates problems.

6/16/2011 5:50 PM
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/16/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):
slider:   What is not realized is that most athletic departments do not make a profit.   Less than 10 show a profit in each of the past 5 years.  But, more than triple that show losses more often than not.    Where do they expect the money to come from?   If they say football, than how do you pay for the program(s), expenses, etc. it would have otherwise gone to that they would still have to pay?   What happens when other athletes demand equal treatment?  Where do you get more money?   How about the student whose research bring in more money through grants?   What happens when they ask for money?  Where will it come from?  

And we have not even covered competitive balance.   The Texas's, Michigan's Ohio State's are more likely in a better position to pay players than say the Northwesterns, Colorados, or even Eastern Michigans or Louisiana Lafayettes.    Paying players, IMO would lead to an exodus out of D1A, cancellation of other sports, increased tuition, increased ticket prices.    Why should everyone else have to foot the bill for a small percentage of students?  Other students have hardships too.  
Maybe that's what's needed -- remove football and men's basketball from campuses. Then you'd have no money but every school would be on the same equal, poor footing.
6/16/2011 5:52 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 4:56:00 PM (view original):
I've already brought up the dismal state of athletic department finances earlier.  To no avail.  I haven't even brought up the dismal state of public school finances.  Title IX and federal funding has also been brought up.  To no avail.  Graduate students and federal research grants has already been brought up.  To no avail.  I don't believe competitive balance has been brought up.  But seeing how the argument is that only sports that make money should pay their athletes, most athletic departments should be shut down anyway since most of them lose money.  Along with most school departments aside from Business, Economics and select hard sciences since none of them receive enough grant money to be self sufficient.  

The argument is that football makes money so football players should get paid.  End of story.  It's myopic to say the least.  Other sports, the schools themselves and taxpayers (both public and private schools receive federal monies) should all foot the bill so that the chosen few who don't like the rules can get paid. 
 
Well I've already said you can keep the status quo and put up with the scandals because of what you've chosen not to acknowledge. Just spare us the sanctimony, OK?
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.