Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 10:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 6:25:00 PM (view original):And that is the fundamental problem we are having here... you are still getting it wrong. People pay lots of money to see their schools play... not the individual kids. Those kids come and go. They are fungible in the grand scheme of things. There will always be good football players who want to play for the Buckeyes. The money will always be there regardless of who is playing.
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 6:07:00 PM (view original):You need to wrap your head around the idea that people pay lots of money to see these kids play. That's the source of the problem and will continue to be under the current system.
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):The only thing that needs to be removed is the idea that these kids are entitled to the money the schools make. Once you do that, everything else gets a lot easier.
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/16/2011 3:31:00 PM (view original):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.
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.
My team is the Crimson Tide. I enjoyed having Mark Ingram on my team. But if Alabama had never signed him, I would have still pulled for, cheered, and fully supported whoever they signed in his place. Its not about the players, its about the team. Individually, the players have little to no value. The coaches are the real faces of the team, not the quarterbacks, or star running backs.
What you're missing is that players have huge value to the schools
but the system restricts what athletes can receive from the schools for those services. The current system allows each school to offer essentially the same base package (scholie, room, board, etc.). But we also know that even with rules in place, the base package isn't sufficient for top-end talent and boosters/programs give players compensation under the table.
What would schools pay for the services of those athletes if there were no rules/restrictions on what they could provide?
No one could say with a straight face that if there were no bars to providing any amount, or form, of compensation to athletes, that scholie, books and food would be the highest bid on any number of high school athletes and JC transfers (e.g., Cam Newton).
RECRUITER: "Son, we're Alabama. People pay to see Alabama...not you
. You have little to no value. Take the damn scholarship and grab a helmet."
RECRUIT [checking text]: "I'm sorry, I missed that coach. That was from T. Boone Pickens. He's offering 50k and a 4-year lease on a car. Do you know how I get to Stillwater from here?"
In sum, I assume you agree we can just eliminate all NCAA rules about benefits since these kids have no value. No school would pay for a valueless commodity, right