6/16/2011 6:07 PM
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):
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.
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.
6/16/2011 6:23 PM
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):
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.
So how do you plan on funding this?  Remember this is not a small sum.  And remember to add the expenses of meeting the equal opportunities aspect of Title IX.    You will have to raise costs for taxpayers and/or other students.  Why should others be footing the bill?
6/16/2011 6:25 PM
I'm not sanctimonious.  I look at college athletics as part of larger whole, not as individual profit/cost centers.  

Those who want to pay the kids to play are welcome to set up their own league, there are no barriers to entry and zero competition, it should be easy.  If the NCAA rules are so onerous, the league should be a rousing success with players fighting to sign up.  You can pay players "market value".  btw, how do you calculate "market value" for a player on a team in a league with no history, tradition, stadium or fanbase?  i.e. how much would you Cam Newton?  $180+k for a 20 year old with "unique and valuable skills"?  Do you think you could cover payroll with your TV contracts, gate receipts, merchandise sales, federal monies, state monies and fan donations?    
 
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
6/16/2011 6:27 PM
Posted by bfkfraser on 6/16/2011 6:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):
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.
So how do you plan on funding this?  Remember this is not a small sum.  And remember to add the expenses of meeting the equal opportunities aspect of Title IX.    You will have to raise costs for taxpayers and/or other students.  Why should others be footing the bill?
I've already said Title IX needs to be reformed if you want to make this work. You can agree or disagree with that. It would be funded through a percentage of the dollars generated by the media rights given the schools for those sports.
6/16/2011 6:28 PM
I am very well aware that I pay a lot of money to watch my team play.  But I'm paying to watch student athletes represent my school in competition.  I'm not paying to watch professionals.  I'll go to an NFL game for that.
 
6/16/2011 6:36 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sanctimonious.  I look at college athletics as part of larger whole, not as individual profit/cost centers.  

Those who want to pay the kids to play are welcome to set up their own league, there are no barriers to entry and zero competition, it should be easy.  If the NCAA rules are so onerous, the league should be a rousing success with players fighting to sign up.  You can pay players "market value".  btw, how do you calculate "market value" for a player on a team in a league with no history, tradition, stadium or fanbase?  i.e. how much would you Cam Newton?  $180+k for a 20 year old with "unique and valuable skills"?  Do you think you could cover payroll with your TV contracts, gate receipts, merchandise sales, federal monies, state monies and fan donations?    
 
Ah, so you want football and men's basketball to pay the freight for the rest of the athletic programs. That's fine. Just understand that money comes with a price and inevitable scandals. You can tsk about football players failing to be in a position take advantage of their scholarships when they arrived at campus. I understand, though, they didn't enjoy the same advantages that I did in terms of a solid family life and good schools. Which is probably why I don't try to approach with the moral certitude of an afterschool special.

 

That said, I don't think you are sanctimonious. Others who share your position (speaking specifically of some pundits and other folk in medialand), though, are insufferable ***** with double standards. And the only reason they've put the boots to Terrell Pryor in print is they understand they still need access to the schools and coaches so they give them a free pass. Which doesn't just make them dishonest but gutless, too.

6/16/2011 6:37 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 6:28:00 PM (view original):
I am very well aware that I pay a lot of money to watch my team play.  But I'm paying to watch student athletes represent my school in competition.  I'm not paying to watch professionals.  I'll go to an NFL game for that.
 
I paid good money to watch amateurs compete in the Olympics. All of them were funded. I don't see a difference between them and college football players or men's basketball players.
6/16/2011 6:49 PM
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 6:28:00 PM (view original):
I am very well aware that I pay a lot of money to watch my team play.  But I'm paying to watch student athletes represent my school in competition.  I'm not paying to watch professionals.  I'll go to an NFL game for that.
 
I paid good money to watch amateurs compete in the Olympics. All of them were funded. I don't see a difference between them and college football players or men's basketball players.
Most of them were not currently NCAA scholarship athletes and none of them were only representing their schools.  I'm pretty sure they didn't get a cut of the Olympic TV coverage contract.
 
6/16/2011 7:03 PM
Ah, so you want football and men's basketball to pay the freight for the rest of the athletic programs. That's fine. Just understand that money comes with a price and inevitable scandals. You can tsk about football players failing to be in a position take advantage of their scholarships when they arrived at campus. I understand, though, they didn't enjoy the same advantages that I did in terms of a solid family life and good schools. Which is probably why I don't try to approach with the moral certitude of an afterschool special.

I don't care if they pay for the rest of the athletic programs, I just don't believe college athletes should be paid.  I understand the price it comes with and, as I previously stated, I want far tougher sanction from the NCAA.  Zero tolerance, player loses a schollie and the coach gets fired.  

As for making exceptions for athletes, regardless of background, I don't buy it.  Getting into school is far easier academically when you're an athlete.  Once you're in school, you have unbelievable resources to succeed academically if you ask for it.  For instance, I was having problems with a class, but it wasn't a standard "jock class".  They went out and hired a tutor for me, and I was no star player, I was lucky if i got to travel that season.  There are full time academic advisors and any kind of counseling you need.  I have several friends who were also athletes that came from less than ideal backgrounds and have done quite well for themselves.  All the help in the world is available if you just ask.  It takes legitimate effort to fall through the cracks and not get your degree.  And once you have your degree, having played D1 sports, you're gold to employers.
 
6/16/2011 7:47 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 6:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 6:28:00 PM (view original):
I am very well aware that I pay a lot of money to watch my team play.  But I'm paying to watch student athletes represent my school in competition.  I'm not paying to watch professionals.  I'll go to an NFL game for that.
 
I paid good money to watch amateurs compete in the Olympics. All of them were funded. I don't see a difference between them and college football players or men's basketball players.
Most of them were not currently NCAA scholarship athletes and none of them were only representing their schools.  I'm pretty sure they didn't get a cut of the Olympic TV coverage contract.
 
No, but the all received support and some of them -- particularly those in higher profile sports -- had some lucrative endorsement deals that went into trust funds to help tide them through their career after the Olympics.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
6/16/2011 7:56 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/16/2011 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Ah, so you want football and men's basketball to pay the freight for the rest of the athletic programs. That's fine. Just understand that money comes with a price and inevitable scandals. You can tsk about football players failing to be in a position take advantage of their scholarships when they arrived at campus. I understand, though, they didn't enjoy the same advantages that I did in terms of a solid family life and good schools. Which is probably why I don't try to approach with the moral certitude of an afterschool special.

I don't care if they pay for the rest of the athletic programs, I just don't believe college athletes should be paid.  I understand the price it comes with and, as I previously stated, I want far tougher sanction from the NCAA.  Zero tolerance, player loses a schollie and the coach gets fired.  

As for making exceptions for athletes, regardless of background, I don't buy it.  Getting into school is far easier academically when you're an athlete.  Once you're in school, you have unbelievable resources to succeed academically if you ask for it.  For instance, I was having problems with a class, but it wasn't a standard "jock class".  They went out and hired a tutor for me, and I was no star player, I was lucky if i got to travel that season.  There are full time academic advisors and any kind of counseling you need.  I have several friends who were also athletes that came from less than ideal backgrounds and have done quite well for themselves.  All the help in the world is available if you just ask.  It takes legitimate effort to fall through the cracks and not get your degree.  And once you have your degree, having played D1 sports, you're gold to employers.
 
So you don't believe college athletes should be paid but it is OK for the schools to set up their own television networks that can earn them a lot of money? I won't even get into the whole issue of coaches earning millions of dollars compared to other professors on campus. Double standards are already in place. Sorry, that's the world that now exists.

As for the whole issue of tougher penalties, it won't stop the problem of illicit payments, in part because the networks who've signed agreements with the conferences would never countenance losing a major program because that would devalue the rights packages they've signed. Sure, you'll have show trials for some players and maybe the odd coach but that's about it. And that really won't end the problem.

You make some valid points about the help afforded to college athletes. That's one reason that I'd tie any payments to athletes to classroom attendence, grades and graduation. I'll wager you'd see some of the appalling graduation rates improve among the major programs as opposed to what they are right now.



6/16/2011 10:17 PM
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 6:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):
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.
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.
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.
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. 

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.
6/16/2011 11:43 PM
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):
Posted by cydrych on 6/16/2011 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by willgibson on 6/16/2011 5:50:00 PM (view original):
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.
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.
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.
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. 

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?






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.