Listening to these NCAA fold talking about paying college athletes and the justifications of not doing so...they always use the same BS arguments. Fine we get it only two sports generate major money and by major were talking hundreds of millions. Football and mens basketball. So guess what make the minimum threshold a scholarship for those players...then do what other professional sports do, designate a minimum portion of net revenues for the athletes....if those revenues exceed the scholarship after first recouping the scholarship money divide the difference of the allocated amount to the student athletes...Also, allow star athletes the ability to profit off their names. Free market economy good lord...the schools make money off jersey sales etc, why shouldnt the star players. Its a joke. The greed of the NCAA is pathetic and if they dont deal with this eventually kids will be allowed to unionize ala Northwestern and college sports will go broke.
3/29/2014 5:47 PM
Been drinking a bit so sorry if post wasnt that coherent...but the sentiment holds true! 
3/29/2014 5:59 PM
Very coherent. And I think it's absurd the way the NCAA acts with regards to this issue. I'm so happy NW won that case, it will force the NCAA to reevaluate their stance. At the bare minimum these kids should be getting a stipend that allows them to buy things for themselves. Boosters and other outside forces won't have as big of an impact on the athletes if they have the money to buy the things they need. 
3/29/2014 6:07 PM
I don't have a hard stance on the issue, but I lean towards the no-pay side. These athletes are already being compensated in the form of scholarships that allow them to earn a degree for free in many cases. 

I do agree the NCAA has absurd rules, and I think perhaps endorsements and outside methods of earning money for your brand should be allowed, but I don't think schools should pay student athletes.
3/29/2014 6:33 PM
Very simple. 95% of atgletic departments need cash from the academic budget to stay afloat. Every dollar given to athletes will either come from academics or from scholarships currently given to other sports.

While Johnny would love to get paid for every td, he would personally **** down the swim team.
3/29/2014 6:38 PM
Sorry for spelling. On phone.
3/29/2014 6:40 PM
That's fine and dandy, but then don't sell Johnny Manziel's jersey in the bookstore, don't put him on your marketing material. Don't have ESPN advertising "Jabari Parker and the Duke Blue Devils." The schools and networks promote individual players to make millions and then the players don't get a dime. The whole talk about the scholarship sounds nice, but the reality is on average a "full scholarship" still leaves athletes paying over 10K a year. On top of that a lot of these kids' family are so poor they would get a ton of financial aid even without the scholarship, and then at least they would be able to get a job during the season and earn some money. It's kind of silly that somebody on an academic scholarship is allowed to work to earn pocket money, while the athlete can't, at least during the season. 
3/29/2014 6:50 PM
Just realized I can finally post on this ID. $9 on a 10-pack got me posting rights. LOL
3/29/2014 6:52 PM
End the amateurism facade.

I can buy an officially licensed #1 Duke Blue Devils jersey, but I can't get one that says Parker on the back. Throw his name on the back and revenue share it with the players. Have them sign footballs and basketballs, revenue share that. Bring back the NCAA video games and put their names on it. Revenue share.

If someone wants to give you lunch (or a tattoo!) in exchange for an autograph and memorabilia, allow it.

Make the scholarship a 4 year binding document by the school. If a new coach comes and sees a bunch of bums and wants to get rid of them. Too bad. As long as the player is showing up ready to play, you're stuck with them, unless they quit/transfer.
3/29/2014 7:08 PM
A few of my thoughts. I don't have a problem not paying players if the schools stop selling jerseys with #s. Also NCAA needs to stop using players as advertisements. Those are a couple things. The college game should be looked at as a job training ground. 99% of people in work force today with good paying jobs needed at least 2 yrs schooling. They learn the game and life lessons in college. Guys like Kobe, Howard and such needed 2-3 yrs in pros before they developed a mans body to play the game. The nba game sucks because of the one and dones. Barkley been saying that the past couple yrs too.

If NCAA doesn't want to change anything, then they must pay players as it's pretty much slavery. I'm not against paying players, but would like it to be a training ground. If I want to be a dr I need 8 yrs plus I believe 3 yrs residency. The players should need to go to school for their job too.
3/29/2014 8:57 PM
OP for the win! 
3/29/2014 9:00 PM
One thing I heard mentioned with regards to the NW decision was the kids may possibly be forced to pay taxes on their scholarship money IF they become paid student athletes.  I don't know squat accounting-wise, but if uncle sam comes calling for the kids getting $30K+ in scholarships I imagine most of the athletes would have trouble coming up with enough to pay said taxes.
3/29/2014 10:36 PM
Not sure whether a decision that the students meet the NLRB's definition of employee means that they meet the same definition under IRS regulations.  If it did, then sure, all private universities have failed to file W-2's for all of their scholarship athletes, the athletes have failed to pay income taxes.   Many would owe penalties for their failure to file appropriate returns, withholding elections and FICA withholding.  I'm not sure that one follows from the other though.

I'm also not certain whether the NLRB's decision necessarily extends to public non-profit institutions, rather than merely private non-profit institutions.  It seemed they relied quite a bit on Northwestern's choice to extend scholarships to a 4 year duration, rather than just 1 year.  Potential upshots of the decision may be that private non-profit institutions will only offer 1 year / temporary grant-in-aid programs (renewable at the whimsy of the head coach) or, if the NLRB's jurisdiction fails to extend to Public/State-owned/chartered Universities, that private universities are simply unable to be competitive anymore.

On a second point, the NCAA makes almost all of its money on March madness in basketball and very little on Football (check the leaked NCAA financial records to verify if you wish).  The jerseys are a very unseemly and stupid mistake by the NCAA.  Those sales are chump change compaired with the licensing & tv rights for the tournament that we're probably all watching.  Control of football may matter, but it isn't a big source of revenue for the NCAA.  The Ed O'Bannon lawsuit probably has them more concerned.  They may beat the NU students on appeal within the NLRB and would certainly win before the DC Circuit (as long as republicans are able to prevent democratic appointees to fill vacancies on that circuit).  
3/29/2014 11:23 PM
I thought the President got those slots filled on the DC Circuit when they changed the filibuster rules.
3/30/2014 2:09 AM
Shows how much I follow those appointments. Yup one more this past week. That might be all of them. I haven't checked who's on the NLRB to hear the appeal. It'd be interesting to know whether the recess appointees that were ruled out are now back on to hear this appeal.
3/30/2014 7:54 AM
123 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, 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.