An interesting story with regard to NCAA rules, etc. [Archive]

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 05:53 AM

My comments in the next post....

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2">August 12, 2004
One struggle after another for Swain <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%"> </td></tr><tr><td>
</td> <td align="right" nowrap="nowrap">
(javascript:window.print();void('');) </td> </tr></tbody> </table> Junior Darrius Swain has been around the block at Georgia. A star tight end and defensive lineman in high school, he landed in Athens after a year of prep school ready to take over at defensive tackle. Since then it has been a saga of position changes, short comings, and for the past 18 months, raising a son. <script language="Javascript">document.write(insertImage('http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/878/37096.jpg', '37096.jpg', 0, 200, 120, 1, 'Darrius Swain is being given another shot at defensive tackle for the Bulldogs.', '', 1092311873000, 'Swain, D. Bio', 878, 'Align=Left'));</script><table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="128"><tbody><tr><td width="122">http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/878/37096.jpg</td><td rowspan="3" width="6">http://vmedia.rivals.com/images/spacer1.gif</td></tr><tr><td height="3">http://vmedia.rivals.com/images/spacer1.gif</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Darrius Swain is being given another shot at defensive tackle for the Bulldogs.</td></tr></tbody></table>Having joined the team mid-year for the Music City Bowl practices in December 2001, Swain had a first spring and went on to play in every game as a true freshman including four starts. As he entered his sophomore year in 2003 Deandre arrived, and Swain and his girlfriend of a year and a half started a family.

It was about that time, spring 2003, that the magic started wearing off. Though he finished spring camp as the first team defensive tackle, but he was inconsistent did not end up starting any games in 2003. Instead, defensive tackle coach Rodney Garner got on his case in the papers to try and light a fire under Swain to improve his play. By the time the season ended, Swain had recorded fewer tackles than he did as a freshman.

"Basically I have had had some off the field problems," he told UGASports.com last fall. "Right now I am just trying to get my life back together."

What was little known at the time was Swain's struggles with being a father, student and athlete. Solutions were tough to come by, and by the time spring practice 2004 rolled around he almost tossed in the towel. Garner had sent him to offensive line coach Neil Callaway to give him a shot at guard, but his morale was low and all he could think about was making ends meet.

"It is hard, it is real hard," said Swain. "I got to a point to where I did not know what I wanted to do."

Today the three of them are facing the typical troubles with two regular college students with a baby are presented. The problem is, Swain is not a regular student, and football takes up most of his free time.

"She is a student and I am and student and we [do not have any] money," said Swain.

Part of the problem is that Swain is trying to move off campus, and with very little cash flow, is having a tough time. He was unable to work over the summer with the commitments of going to summer school, studying, and attending football workouts.

Ideas for making cash have failed in the past. In 2003, he was one of nine players who sold his SEC Championship ring and was suspended for the season opener.

"It is hard supporting my baby because I am in college and I can not make any money,"

Now, with Deandre 18 months old, Swain is being given another shot. Garner has welcomed him back to defensive tackle, and it has given the junior from Decatur hope for another chance.

"Swain's got a fresh start with me and I told him that we're glad he came back," said Garner. "Darrius has a lot of potential."

Tipping the scales at 350 pounds -- he was up to 366 at one point this summer -- Swain's first order of the day will be to shed some weight. While he would like to get down to 315, 330 seems like a more realistic target and is the coaching staff's preference.

The new start, and the not-so-newborn, just might provide Swain with the needed spark.

"My son, and the fact that I know I am better than what I am doing, is pushing me right now," he said in closing. "It is hard, but I have got to figure out a way of doing it. I have to either graduate or make it to the next level."

And as for Garner, he says that the tough love of the past was his best effort for preparing Swain for not only football, but for everything that lays ahead.

"Everything I do for him to get him prepared is for life as well because he now has a wife depending on him. He's got to be a man. Men don't make excuses, men find solutions."

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 06:22 AM

Now, without question, Darrius has set himself up to be in this situation because of decisions that he has made. However, his situation does to a small degree highlight the situation that guys from impoverished backgrounds with little support and previous discipline often find themselves in at a major college program. I'm curious what sort of reactions this article invokes.

Also, one line in the article doesn't jibe with what my understanding of NCAA rules is. "He was unable to work over the summer with the commitments of going to summer school, studying, and attending football workouts." I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to work over the summer, for fear of boosters paying ridiculous salaries to players for doing next to nothing. Is my understanding incorrect?

With regard to boosters and jobs for players, I know fairly intimate details of one specific story, since it involved someone who lived 8 houses down the street from me. It happened nearly 30 years ago, so I'd imagine the NCAA Statute of Limitations has passed by now. ;)

My cousin and another athlete from his high school were being heavily recruited by two rival programs from a certain large Southern state. During the summer between their Junior and Senior years in High School, they were given a "job" by a faithful booster of one of the schools. They worked in the "advertising" department of the company. Their job? Oh yes, they were to drive a company truck around to "get the name out there in the community." They needed to log something like 40 driving miles a day, and make sure the truck was in a "visible spot" (ie not a driveway or garage) for at least 8 hours every day and of course the gasoline was paid for out of the company's advertising budget. That 40 miles a day generally consisted of one big circle around Columbus in the morning, taking a little over an hour, and they were done "working" for the day, but were credited for a full 8-hour day, because after all, even if the trucked was parked out on a street, "the company name was being seen by everyone who passed by." ;) That truck spent a LOT of time parked out in front of our house, because our front porch was one of the primary spades-playing spots in our neighborhood, and our back yard was also one of the primary basketball-playing spots. They were paid $10 per hour, for a 40-hour work week, and remember--this was quite some time ago. That was a LOT of money for two teenagers to make.

KeyserSoze

08-13-2004, 07:16 AM

My opinion as a foreigner. I dont want to begin aflame war, but these are my thoughts.

NCAA system is a joke. It´s professional sport. If the coachs, the refs, the advisors, the media worked for free it would be amateur. Parla basketball league is amateur. Town leagues are amateurs. NCAA is not.
NCAA for me is a monopoly. And they have fixed the salaries of the "workers" (players), just to make more profits to the monopolist . First I think is not ethical. It would be ethical if the Coach of Iowa earns the same that the Texas coach. If they earn different, why the players just earn the same?

Also...What happen when you fixed the prices??? Corruption. All the system is semicommunist, and you know that greed plus communism always ends in something that smell very bad.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 07:17 AM

I'm curious what sort of reactions this article invokes.

Okay, but remember, you asked for it ;)

Now, without question, Darrius has set himself up to be in this situation because of decisions that he has made.

Well, you covered my first & largest reaction right off the bat.

My next reaction was something along the lines of just another example of how "college isn't, and was never intended to be, for everybody". Or , in this case "major college football programs" aren't for everybody.

Is Darius Swain a serious NFL prospect? Not in my opinion, and almost certainly not from the way I read the article. So why is he playing football then, instead of doing things to provide for his family? Most obvious answer is: Duh, he's playing because it pays for school. But last time I checked, there are other ways to pay for school. And there are certainly places where football would be less demanding than at a top SEC program.

My next thought was something like: "Well, just another reason I wish they'd just go ahead & put the players on salary like I've thought they should for years."

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 07:18 AM

Samdari

08-13-2004, 07:24 AM

Also, one line in the article doesn't jibe with what my understanding of NCAA rules is. "[font=Arial][size=2]He was unable to work over the summer with the commitments of going to summer school, studying, and attending football workouts." I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to work over the summer, for fear of boosters paying ridiculous salaries to players for doing next to nothing. Is my understanding incorrect?

I believe they are not allowed to work during the school year, but are allowed to have summer jobs. I note that he was enrolled in summer school, which, if paid for by his scholarship, could mean he was ineligible to work.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 07:25 AM

Is Darius Swain a serious NFL prospect? Well, that's an interesting question. Is he a serious prospect if he works out like he needs to be doing and gets his weight under control? Yes. Is he a serious prospect if, as is the case this year, his bench press remains at 350 pounds from one season to the next? No.

I, too, think that they should should be salaried.

ACK!!!!!! That's E-vokes, Ben! 20 lashes with a wet noodle. Shame on me. :(

Samdari

08-13-2004, 07:30 AM

I, too, think that they should should be salaried.

I have no problem with this, as long as there is a corresponding initiative that dispenses with the ridiculous notion that they are students.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 07:37 AM

I have no problem with this, as long as there is a corresponding initiative that dispenses with the ridiculous notion that they are students.The problem is that some of them are. For example, at dinner a couple of weeks ago, Buzzbee and I were talking about former Georgia Tech player Derek Goshay, who I've known since 10th grade. Derek was never an NFL prospect, and didn't really even like football all that much. (His first love was basketball.) However, he saw football as a means to an end, accepted a football scholarship to Tech, didn't get to play that much while he was there, but got his degree, and now is quite successful in the business world. Without football, and specifically without being a true student-athlete, there's very little chance he would have a degree from Georgia Tech.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 07:45 AM

I have no problem with this, as long as there is a corresponding initiative that dispenses with the ridiculous notion that they are students.

Graduated with a 3.8 from TCU in Engineering. Walked on and worked my ass off to eat and pay for school for two years until I earned a scholarship.

I was not a student for two years? :rolleyes:

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 07:48 AM

I was not a student for two years? :rolleyes:

So you're not a part of the problem perhaps.

(My "pay the athletes" plan includes a separation of teams composed of student-athletes and the newly created class of "semi-pros" who are essentially university employees)

gstelmack

08-13-2004, 07:51 AM

I have two reaction to this:

1) With regard to his specific situation, he chose to have a child. I'm sorry that being a father is dragging down his football, but he chose to have the child. Raising a family is not easy for ANYBODY.

2) With regard to the NCAA as a whole, with all the money flying around, sure the kids should be employees and paid as such. I will point out that they are already paid some as they are getting a full scholarship. But yes there should be some fun money thrown in there. Whether that should be enough to raise a family on while at school may be a different can of worms, but yes the NCAA is making a ton of money off these kids and using "academics" as a way to keep a higher percentage of it.

Celeval

08-13-2004, 07:57 AM

Note on the jobs - I do know that some level of summer jobs is allowed. I know one of the more popular summer jobs for both Georgia and Georgia Tech football players is security at some of the concert venues in and around Atlanta. They can be... er... pretty effective.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 07:59 AM

So you're not a part of the problem perhaps.

(My "pay the athletes" plan includes a separation of teams composed of student-athletes and the newly created class of "semi-pros" who are essentially university employees)

I think you and others have greatly exaggerated the problem.

For every Darrius Swain there are 100 student-athletes (in all the collegiate sports) that are students and athletes.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 08:09 AM

They can be... er... pretty effective.LOL. Yeah, I can't imagine too many people tangling with big Swain. ;)

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 08:12 AM

(My "pay the athletes" plan includes a separation of teams composed of student-athletes and the newly created class of "semi-pros" who are essentially university employees)I just don't think that is feasible. There are too many teams with BOTH categories of player on them. Even the perennial Top 25 teams have dozens of guys who:

a. are on scholarship
b: get it done in the classroom
c: rarely see the field on Saturday afternoons.

MacroGuru

08-13-2004, 08:14 AM

Isn't the only amount an NCAA player able to make a month only $750?

That figure is always brought up around here because the bulk of BYU teamers are married, and some even have children.

So the stories that always arise are how strong their wives are to support them with their jobs while the players focus on football.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 08:15 AM

I think you and others have greatly exaggerated the problem.

For every Darrius Swain there are 100 student-athletes (in all the collegiate sports) that are students and athletes.
I agree that it is an exaggeration, but still believe that players should be payed. I also don't think a kid should be kept out of playing because he is not a college level student.

stevew

08-13-2004, 08:24 AM

I have two reaction to this:

1) With regard to his specific situation, he chose to have a child. I'm sorry that being a father is dragging down his football, but he chose to have the child. Raising a family is not easy for ANYBODY.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for him cause he has a child without any means of financially supporting it? Quit football and get a job like the rest of us. Or his girlfriend can quit school and work while he finishes.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 08:25 AM

I agree that it is an exaggeration, but still believe that players should be payed. I also don't think a kid should be kept out of playing because he is not a college level student.

Well I am in full support of either a small supplemental amount of money per month or allowed the opportunity to work in a university-approved environment. Much like work-study.

If you allow them to work wherever they want, that is when the boosters and alumni interfere.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 08:34 AM

I just don't think that is feasible. There are too many teams with BOTH categories of player on them. Even the perennial Top 25 teams have dozens of guys who:

a. are on scholarship
b: get it done in the classroom
c: rarely see the field on Saturday afternoons.

What I envision, and advocate, is an additional tier (because I don't believe those who remain strictly student-athlete would accept the stigma of going to I-AA)

Create a "Division I-A Prime" (just pick a name) -- It's for the football factories, the perennial BCS teams, etc, etc. The Nebraska's, Georgia's, Notre Dame's, Miami's, etc.

The Duke's, the Vanderbilt's et al of the world stick to the current system, with additional teams likely (IMO) to move up from I-AA.

Let's face it -- if Duke & Vandy were paying players, breaking every rule in the (current) book, etc., they'd have to be at least a little more competitive than they are now. Give 'em a league of their own, with serious enforcement of the rules. And the others, where there's a wink & a nod given to various & sundry violations already ... just let 'em pay the players directly & stop the charade about classes & rules. The non-students will gravitate toward the semi-pro teams, the students who happen to play a little football will find the academic institutions ... the players are just re-distributed.

Crapshoot

08-13-2004, 08:38 AM

Okay, but remember, you asked for it ;)

Well, you covered my first & largest reaction right off the bat.

My next reaction was something along the lines of just another example of how "college isn't, and was never intended to be, for everybody". Or , in this case "major college football programs" aren't for everybody.

Is Darius Swain a serious NFL prospect? Not in my opinion, and almost certainly not from the way I read the article. So why is he playing football then, instead of doing things to provide for his family? Most obvious answer is: Duh, he's playing because it pays for school. But last time I checked, there are other ways to pay for school. And there are certainly places where football would be less demanding than at a top SEC program.

My next thought was something like: "Well, just another reason I wish they'd just go ahead & put the players on salary like I've thought they should for years."

We agree- I find it inane that people support this ridiculous monopoly, where coaches can get paid $2 million per year and players arent allowed to make a goddamn penny. In cases like Jeremy Blooms, the NCAA's hypocricsy is stunning- this is an organization that signed a $6 billion deal just for its NCAA tournaments, and it wont let a guy sign endorsement deals related to his status as one of the world's best professional skiers. Whenever I hear someone talk about how college ball is better, I keep wondering why we support this shit.

CraigSca

08-13-2004, 08:44 AM

I give a big resounding "so what" to the the problems people have with the NCAA. Is it necessarily fair of the NCAA to make billions of dollars while the athletes can't make money - obviously there's some disparity there.

However, the fact is - these guys are students, and they earn a free ride through school. Either they're smart enough to use it (earn a college degree) or they use the university to get a job in the pros. What's the big deal? So, someone's making money off them. If they're not stupid, they can take advantage of the process and earn money for the next 50 years of their lives.

Noop

08-13-2004, 09:09 AM

I don't know but all of the major college teams pay players. When your a 5 star recruit you are getting paid period. Brandon Miller who is playing at UGA wanted to go to Florida State but hometown pressure( boosters) made him go to UGA. Willie Williams is the same his mom has a new house in one of the nicest parts of Miami I wonder where she got the money from. So basically they just need to be open and up front about it because it does go on....

Huckleberry

08-13-2004, 09:18 AM

Well, whatever the solution is, I think most people agree that the current NCAA setup is bad.

Anyway:

"She is a student and I am and student and we [do not have any] money," said Swain.

Why do journalists do that? Was [do not have any] originally [ain't got no]?

bhlloy

08-13-2004, 09:52 AM

Buzzbee

08-13-2004, 10:17 AM

Such a can of worms when you come to paying college players though. Who do you pay? Do you pay by the game or a yearly salary? What happens if the player gets cut or is academically ineligible? What about walk ons?

For me, the free ride through school should be enough and if a player isn't serious about getting a degree and improving his life prospects at the end of the day then that is his problem. I have sympathy for the guy in the article but nobody is forcing him to play football, there are other ways of funding college and there are students all over the world who are in ridiculous hardship.

I do agree that the NCAA (or someone) does need to take a long hard look at the profits they are making: throwing out a potential solution how about a certain amount of revenue gets paid into a fund which can then be used to help players in financial hardship and maybe pay a lump sum to players after they graduate to help them make the transition into the real world.

I agree with what CraigSca said, and with the above post. I'm especially intrigued by the last paragraph. That seems like a logical solution. Rather than pay players, set up funds to assist hardship cases. Seems pretty simple and logical. I guess that's why it hasn't been pushed harder.

Also, does anyone have any stats about what percentage football players are of the total student-athlete population? Can't really justify paying football players and not basketball players. Can't really justify paying basketball players and not baseball players, etc. Might base it on revenue brought into the school, but not sure if I'm crazy about that idea either.

CraigSca

08-13-2004, 10:20 AM

On a related note, does anyone know where all the profits actually go?

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 10:21 AM

It sucks for him, but he had a kid, deal with it like a man. If I had a kid, I would have had to drop out of school because I couldn't afford both. It sucks, but get over it and grow the fuck up.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 10:28 AM

What I envision, and advocate, is an additional tier (because I don't believe those who remain strictly student-athlete would accept the stigma of going to I-AA)

Create a "Division I-A Prime" (just pick a name) -- It's for the football factories, the perennial BCS teams, etc, etc. The Nebraska's, Georgia's, Notre Dame's, Miami's, etc.

The Duke's, the Vanderbilt's et al of the world stick to the current system, with additional teams likely (IMO) to move up from I-AA.

Let's face it -- if Duke & Vandy were paying players, breaking every rule in the (current) book, etc., they'd have to be at least a little more competitive than they are now. Give 'em a league of their own, with serious enforcement of the rules. And the others, where there's a wink & a nod given to various & sundry violations already ... just let 'em pay the players directly & stop the charade about classes & rules. The non-students will gravitate toward the semi-pro teams, the students who happen to play a little football will find the academic institutions ... the players are just re-distributed.

Why keep the names of the schools? If you cut out the classes, what do you do with the other 30,000 people at the school who aren't football players? What you are suggesting isn't fixing college football, it's creating minor league football. Whether or not minor league football would fly is debateable, but I don't think simply adding "University of" at the begining of their names is gonna maintain the popularity of it.

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 10:42 AM

Why keep the names of the schools? If you cut out the classes, what do you do with the other 30,000 people at the school who aren't football players? What you are suggesting isn't fixing college football, it's creating minor league football. Whether or not minor league football would fly is debateable, but I don't think simply adding "University of" at the begining of their names is gonna maintain the popularity of it.
Exactly. This is way the "pay the players" advocates blow my mind. They're being paid - they get a free shot at a fucking college education!

As soon as you talk about paying them cash, we're not even talking about college football anymore.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 10:44 AM

Why keep the names of the schools? If you cut out the classes, what do you do with the other 30,000 people at the school who aren't football players? What you are suggesting isn't fixing college football, it's creating minor league football. Whether or not minor league football would fly is debateable, but I don't think simply adding "University of" at the begining of their names is gonna maintain the popularity of it.
I think that is exactly what he is suggesting, because the fact is the current NCAA is just that without the name.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 10:49 AM

Exactly. This is way the "pay the players" advocates blow my mind. They're being paid - they get a free shot at a fucking college education!

As soon as you talk about paying them cash, we're not even talking about college football anymore.

BUT, why do you have to get a college degree to play pro football? The current system pretty much forces kids to go to school to have a shot at playing in the pro's, and many of those kids do not belong in a college setting. They either do not have the will or the intellect. The sad thing is that the current system 1) keeps out players that have talent but may not have the skills/intellect to qualify for school, or 2) forces them to cheat and reinforces the benefit of breaking the rules. It does many kids a great disservice.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 10:51 AM

On a related note, does anyone know where all the profits actually go?
Because of title 9, most of it goes to fund the girls lacross team. :)

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 10:52 AM

BUT, why do you have to get a college degree to play pro football? The current system pretty much forces kids to go to school to have a shot at playing in the pro's, and many of those kids do not belong in a college setting. They either do not have the will or the intellect. The sad thing is that the current system 1) keeps out players that have talent but may not have the skills/intellect to qualify for school, or 2) forces them to cheat and reinforces the benefit of breaking the rules. It does many kids a great disservice.
Then there is a gaping hole for a minor league for players ages 18+. Let someone create it, I just don't want to see university names attached to football teams made up of players who aren't even in school, or are being payed to attend that school and play football for them.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 10:53 AM

Then there is a gaping hole for a minor league for players ages 18+. Let someone create it, I just don't want to see university names attached to football teams made up of players who aren't even in school, or are being payed to attend that school and play football for them.

I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it would be a perfect solution. The problem is the NFL has a free system now, and they don't want to have to pay for something that the NCAA is willing to fund for them.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 10:54 AM

I think that is exactly what he is suggesting, because the fact is the current NCAA is just that without the name.

But without the university, the popularity is next to nothing, and all the money would start pouring into the schools that decided to remain student-based. I've heard good ideas for creating minor league football, but this isn't one of them.

Booster groups are comprised mostly of alumni. It stands to reason that if you no longer have alumni, you no longer have boosters.

Also, there really are a very large number of student-atheletes besides football, basketball and baseball. What do you do with all of these students? Do you bus them over to the nearest university? Do you overcrowd that university's dorm? Do you make the nearest univerisity honor the previous scholarship?

Again, what about the rest of the student body, the rest of the faculty? Say what you want about the hypocracy of the NCAA, but there are a great many good things that go on in the university's as a whole.

CraigSca

08-13-2004, 10:57 AM

Because of title 9, most of it goes to fund the girls lacross team. :)

If that's the case, then everyone should just shut up! If we pay athletes, the money has to come from somewhere, so I can't imagine the uproar that would occur if we have close down women's lacross so the 3rd string safety can get his $500 monthly stipend.

As I see it - there's no solution here and there really is no huge problem. People like to bitch when a person, company, organization makes a lot of money. So what!

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 10:58 AM

Why keep the names of the schools?

Because they're more marketable than the Lincoln Logs.

If you cut out the classes, what do you do with the other 30,000 people at the school who aren't football players?

They're students. The football players are university employees.

What you are suggesting isn't fixing college football, it's creating minor league football.

Actually (as GrantDawg already pointed out), I'm not creating anything --
I'm just acknowledging what it already is. Other than that, the football programs exist as a marketing tool for the school (which is actually the line item where I believe the salary money belongs in the school budget)

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 11:00 AM

First off, I want to say that I applaud Swain and his girlfriend for having the child. That in of itself was a courageous decision to make. The decision to raise that child as opposed to giving it up for adoption was one they freely and knowingly made. That said - having a child is a responsibliity and you do what you need to do to support that child.

Swain is getting a free ride to the university. I don't buy this argument we need to pay college players - you want to pay college players fine, make them pay for their education and their room and board and everything else on campus too. These kids are getting paid - they all are getting the chance to get a free education which will help them get a decent job when they leave school. And if they are a good player, they're getting a free PR department in the university helping them get their name out there for the pros. If they blow their chance at an education that's their fault - same as if they blow the money you pay them on booze, drugs and fancy cars.

Families make tough choices all the time. Maybe the dad isn't a star football player and he has to work double shifts on the line every day making cars. Maybe they can't afford cable or maybe they can't go on a vacation but you do without to make sure your child is taken care of. Why can't ONE of the two of them work? In families usually the person with the better job keeps theirs if there is only going to be one person working.

If Swain has a shot at the pros which would obviously be the better job then his g/f should quit school, get a job and take care of their child. She can go back to school once he's in the pros. It's not like you are ever too old to enroll in college. And if Swain isn't going to have a shot at the pros then he needs to quit football and get a job and between him and his g/f they need to figure out who gets their degree first - and if either one of them can even afford to be at UGA. Maybe they have to go to community college or something. Swain and his g/f are choosing to do things that don't pay the bills and I'm assuming in her case cost a fair amount of money unless she is on scholarship too. Either way, someone has to make a tough choice and do what needs to be done to support their child.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 11:02 AM

If that's the case, then everyone should just shut up! If we pay athletes, the money has to come from somewhere, so I can't imagine the uproar that would occur if we have close down women's lacross so the 3rd string safety can get his $500 monthly stipend.

As I see it - there's no solution here and there really is no huge problem. People like to bitch when a person, company, organization makes a lot of money. So what!

Truth is they couldn't go to the system that Jon suggest because of title 9 unless this "college employee" would not be counted against title 9. If they were, then they would have to pay the lacross players, too.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 11:07 AM

... and all the money would start pouring into the schools that decided to remain student-based.

I disagree. Heartily & almost completely.

I strongly suspect it'll vary from place to place, maybe even region to region but most of the college football fans I know, and even most of the contributing alums I know, are far more interested in the success of the team on the field than they are the success of the student in the classroom.

The alums are going to keep contributing regardless of whether these are employees or "students" ... they don't want the stigma of a bad team attached to their alma mater.

You still have alumni -- people who've gone to XYZ University to get an education. They'll still have the same motivation they have right now. You'll lose a few large contributors from the athletes-who-go-on-to-make-millions group, but these make up a relatively small part of the alum base already.

Also, there really are a very large number of student-atheletes besides football, basketball and baseball. What do you do with all of these students?

My idea is limited (at this point at least) to football. Although I can see some basketball applications as well, I don't believe they're are enough "basketball factories" to support "a league of their own".

The flow of money changes, and I suspect the number of sports may drop in some areas due to lost "athletic department revenue" but I'm not sure how much of my tax dollars (in the case of public universities) I want going toward women's j.v. lacrosse anyway. In the case of the private schools, it's pay to play, just like a student activity fee.

And remember, I'm not talking about anything mandatory here ... I'm talking about creating an option. I believe there are enough schools that, given a big enough TV deal (etc etc etc), and avoiding the hassle of trying to stay in compliance & remain competitive simultaneously, would make such a "I-A Prime" league viable.

Ultimately, I'm talking about letting schools get back to the business of education ... and letting the business of big-time athletics do the business of big-time athletics.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 11:16 AM

Ultimately, I'm talking about letting schools get back to the business of education ... and letting the business of big-time athletics do the business of big-time athletics.

As much as I disagree with paying college athletes (unless you're going to pay them what a kid could make making pizzas a couple nights a week and you are going to make them pay for their education) Jon does have a point here.

These kids are already treated differently than any other student in the university. They might as well let schools sign kids to play for their teams, pay them a stipend and give them the option to pay for school (maybe at a discounted rate) or just not go to school and be a football player until their eligibility runs out and if they get drafted great and if not they go flip burgers or enroll in school at the full price out of their own pocket.

What sucks is that people who really want to go to the school get turned down because they need to take a 5 star prospect HB with a GPA barely above 1 instead of a 3.8 GPA kid who wants to be a doctor or something. I'm not saying all athletes are like that - especially outside of football and basketball very few I have ever met are but why even pretend they all are students? Let the ones who are interested in being student-atheletes get their stipend and their education at a discounted rate and let the others just get their stipend and give their spot in the university to someone who actually wants that education and degree.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 11:20 AM

dola -

since what I proposed would eliminate scholarships give each team stipend amounts they can pay and give them a certain number. Like 10 kids can get paid $5000 for the season and then 20 can get paid $3000 and so forth - that way you still have the attempt at parity that the scholarship system has and the same schools won't always just be able to get the best kids - or at least no more so than they can do now.

sterlingice

08-13-2004, 12:02 PM

I know paying football players always sounds like a good solution. Because, in reality, they are a half step away from professional athletes. However, everyone who says it fails to addresses where the money will come from. Athletic Corporations of schools already have difficulties hanging around in the black because of Title IX. Sure, the problems would be helped if admins didn't hand out such lucrative contracts to themselves or coaches but like other administrators in charge of their own salaries, how likely are these people to decrease the money they are giving themselves. And for coaches, athletic directors (accurately) see that a good coach change is money well spent if they choose the right one and he turns the program around so they look at it as an investment (i.e. "I invest a lot of money in my coach to get a bigger return on more support for my football/basketball program down the road"). But, back to the problem at hand, with football or any revenue-generating sport not being exempt from Title IX, if you salary players, you would eliminate any other male non-revenue-generating (i.e. the golfs and tennises of the world) sport because no longer could you use your football revenue to prop up women's sports (which, only in extreme cases like UConn women's basketball) can even come close to supporting themselves.

However, if you declare a rule about revenue-generating being exempt, athletic corporations would be very tempted to just have revenue generating sports and all non-revenue-generating sports for both men and women would be wiped off the face of college athletics.

And that's not even taking into account Division I-AA and lower schools. How would they even come close to Title IX compliance? Those levels of school would fold even faster than they did in the 90's and you would either get to play at one of the major conference schools or not play at all because no smaller school in the country could afford to have football and then support the subsequent sports that came along with it because for every buck spent on football, at least about 75c has to be spent on a women's sport and, at almost every school, very few of those are revenue generating, if any.

And I'm not just complaining to complain- I took a course on this about 5 years ago and major college sports are just one giant paradox. I'd be curious to see if there are any answers. For me, the easiest thing would be to try and claim football and maybe a couple of other sports are co-ed sports but you can't designate as such and if you tried, you'd be taken to court by women's right advocates and lose because the court system has their head so far up their arse on this issue. And that despite the fact that I'm pretty sure that if there was a girl in Kansas who could play like Larry Fitzgerald or Ron Dayne or Mike Vick in college that Mark Mangino would sign her up here at KU in an instant.

Frankly, as it stands right now, unless you can address these issues, I'd rather just stick with the current system. There are a lot of people being screwed by it, no doubt. Not only that, but it's very crooked. However, it is actually less of a problem than if we took any of these other paths. It's scary to pick, but I think the lesser of two evils is to have the problems that exist with college athletics but still have them because until someone can point out a viable alternative to how the system should work, the only other alternative I see is no sports at all (And keep in mind I haven't even gone into the question of "who gets paid" because, odds are, with Title IX advocates, they would sue so everyone gets paid so it's not even plausable to say "just pay college football players").

SI

Noop

08-13-2004, 12:05 PM

I am willing to bet the same people that say players should not be paid are the one's who call a player selfish for wanting to turn pro early.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 12:08 PM

Uh oh. Potential bad news for UGA. A similar article to the one I posted appeared in todays Athens Banner-Herald. However, the Banner-Herald version was even more sympathetic-sounding toward the kid. I have a bad feeling that this whole thing is going to be very bad news for UGA football down the road.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 12:15 PM

I have a bad feeling that this whole thing is going to be very bad news for UGA football down the road.

Unless you're hinting that you believe this story is running to promote sympathy for the kid in the wake of a "he got paid" story, I'm not sure how this bodes ill for UGA. I'm confuzed.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 12:26 PM

Unless you're hinting that you believe this story is running to promote sympathy for the kid in the wake of a "he got paid" story, I'm not sure how this bodes ill for UGA. I'm confuzed.Here's my specific scenario of fear:

1. Story runs in Athens paper, evoking sympathy in the community in which he now lives.
2. Some well-meaning person in Athens gives him fairly modest cash (a couple grand...) to help with his kid.
3. Booster from (take your pick) Auburn/Florida/Tech/Tennessee at some point down the road gives him a BIGGER chunk of change to tell the story of the UGA supporter in Athens who gave him money.

#3 has happened before in the SEC, and will happen again.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 12:27 PM

I am willing to bet the same people that say players should not be paid are the one's who call a player selfish for wanting to turn pro early.

Well, not me - I don't have a problem with kids going pro early. Its a job - if the employer wants to hire an 18, 19, 20 year old for the job thats up to them. Just like any other employer they have the right to hire whoever they feel the best person for the job is regardless of age. I don't think players should be paid because they're already being paid with a free education and room and board. Maybe that's not worth anything to them but it sure means something to the normal people who are dishing out 50, 60, 100 grand for their educations. Like I said if you want to pay college players, fine - treat it as a job and make them pay for school like the rest of us.

Of course the down side of that is that is really a "star" solution. Sure the kids who could care less about school and are only there to get their name in the papers for the draft would be happy cause they get a couple of bucks but for many of the athletes the free education is why they play the sport.

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 12:31 PM

I am willing to bet the same people that say players should not be paid are the one's who call a player selfish for wanting to turn pro early.
Not me. I absolutely hate the idea of paying college players. Yet I'm all for players leaving school early. Turning down assured financial security just to finish out your 4 years is a very poor long-term decicision. It's a monster risk for very little gain.

You can always get that degree later, but one freak play in that senior year and that 8 million dollar signing bonus is gone forever.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 12:31 PM

but for many of the athletes the free education is why they play the sport.I wonder for how many of them this is true. Yeah, a very small percentage of them make it to the pros, and I'm sure they get a speech to that effect the first day they're on campus. However, given the ego and maturity level of the average 18-year-old D-1 football player (a kid who has been told he is the greatest since pee-wee football, usually), I'd imagine a large number of them are sitting there thinking, "Yeah, only 2% make it to the NFL, but I'm gonna be one of that 2%." I'll bet at least 50% of them are sitting there thinking they'll be one of the 2%. Heck, I know high school kids who can't make the varsity basketball team who still think they're going to be in the NBA one day.

Ben E Lou

08-13-2004, 12:32 PM

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 12:39 PM

SkyDog - I totally agree that there are those kids who think they're headed to the NBA when they can't even play on their high school team - I should have been clearer in my statement....what I meant was ALL of the student-athletes, not just football players. I think when you take all of the student-athletes in a university, many of them are doing it for the education. For the bigger sports like football and basketball I would say the vast majority at least think they have a shot at the pros and are planning/hoping on that coming true though.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 12:41 PM

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 12:44 PM

Yeah noop, I think you're wrong on that one. When that subject has come up before, the huge majority of people that expressed opinions had no problem with a kid leaving school early if they were guaranteed a nice signing bonus.
I think the debates between players leaving early and paying college football players are completely different. Almost no one rips players who leave early, given the economics of it, it's absolutely a no-brainer decision. Go pro, take the cash, and finish up school later if school actually mattered to you.

But paying college players just crosses the line from collegiate athletes kind of being paid (free education, having a 4 year NFL job audition) into something that has zero to do with academics. Remember, todays college football wouldn't exist with the Universities they are attached too. Flat out paying players would be absurd.

As I said, if there really is the market for players who have no interest in college but the chance to play in the NFL - then a minor league for this will inevitable emerge.

Samdari

08-13-2004, 01:10 PM

Exactly. This is way the "pay the players" advocates blow my mind. They're being paid - they get a free shot at a fucking college education!

As soon as you talk about paying them cash, we're not even talking about college football anymore.

Question - would you do a job that was worth, from an economic standpoint, $250,000 a year, and be willing to take as compensation instead, a year's supply of that company's product, which costs the company nothing and has a retail value of $30,000?

EDOT: Ben, you aren't seriously suggesting that college football right now has anything to do with academics, are you?

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 01:21 PM

Why is it the NCAA's fault that there is no minor leagues? Why should they have to pay college football players because the NFL doesn't want to pony up for a minor league? Baseball wants a minor league, but is it the NCAA's fault if baseball suddenly decides they don't want the minors?

And educating people costs nothing? Well I'm glad I paid that 30K a year.

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 01:24 PM

Question - would you do a job that was worth, from an economic standpoint, $250,000 a year, and be willing to take as compensation instead, a year's supply of that company's product, which costs the company nothing and has a retail value of $30,000?
We're not talking about a job, period. It's more comparable to an NFL internship, except you have free access to a ton of other job skills (college diploma) free of charge as well. So even if you don't land your multi-million dollar dream job, you're no worse off than other college graduates.

Buzzbee

08-13-2004, 01:28 PM

Question - would you do a job that was worth, from an economic standpoint, $250,000 a year, and be willing to take as compensation instead, a year's supply of that company's product, which costs the company nothing and has a retail value of $30,000?

EDOT: Ben, you aren't seriously suggesting that college football right now has anything to do with academics, are you?

Nice example Samdari. Too bad it doesn't apply. Now, add in that the company gives you the knowledge to go out and make your own product and sell it, and perhaps make anwhere from $0 to several million $'s and you might have a valid example.

CraigSca

08-13-2004, 01:29 PM

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 01:43 PM

It's not the same thing. It's not like the $30k product doesn't have much greater value than it's cost. Otherwise, no one would go to school. Even if the school earns $1 million from you going there, with a college education you're still going to come out the winner. I'm not even talking about the guys who go pro - they're making a killing.
So, in dream land, every kid who goes to college to play football gets an education. They all get a diaploma and a skill that allows them to make money in the future.

Wow, I wish I lived in dreamland...

JHandley

08-13-2004, 01:45 PM

So, in dream land, every kid who goes to college to play football gets an education. They all get a diaploma and a skill that allows them to make money in the future.

Wow, I wish I lived in dreamland...

In the real world every kid who goes to college to play football gets the opportunity to get an education. Are you suggesting it is anyone else's fault they don't do it?

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 01:50 PM

The train of thought that runs along the track of "... but they get a free education" kinda reminds me of the old joke about dog food being on sale. Paraphrasing to fit this discussion:

Salesman: But it's free ... how much do you want
Customer: None ... I don't have a dog
Salesman: But it's free ...

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 01:51 PM

In the real world every kid who goes to college to play football gets the opportunity to get an education. Are you suggesting it is anyone else's fault they don't do it?
Yes.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 01:56 PM

So just throw personal responsibility right out the window? It's not their fault they're illiterate, he was a hell of a running back in high school?

Buzzbee

08-13-2004, 01:57 PM

Yes.

Heeeey Luuuuuuuuuuuuuucy! How you 'splain dis? ;)

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 01:58 PM

So just throw personal responsibility right out the window? It's not their fault they're illiterate, he was a hell of a running back in high school?
Never said that, but not everyone belongs in college. You think everyone does? Everyone you ever met all had the skills and intellect to make it through college? If so, a college education isn't worth much.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 02:00 PM

I see Jon's point about giving them something they in some cases don't want (ie the education) but for those kids who don't want that, the university is still giving them a free place to live, free meals to eat and 4-5 years worth of chances to develop their football skills and get noticed by the NFL and in return they have to show up to class (in most cases) and skate by (and if you're good enough some teachers don't even require you to do that)

As for what they do with their opportunities - that is up to the "student"-athlete. It's his choice whether he goes to class and studies and actually gives a damn about getting that piece of paper. Yeah that might mean late nights studying because football practice ran long but then if its important to you and football is important to you then you give up something else - like partying. If the education isn't important to you then you don't work at it - its up to each individual how much he values that educational opportunity.

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 02:00 PM

Never said that, but not everyone belongs in college. You think everyone does? Everyone you ever met all had the skills and intellect to make it through college? If so, a college education isn't worth much.Then go play in the arena or CFL league until you're NFL eligible. If you're NFL material, they'll find you even.

edit: and if college is not for you, college football is not for you.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:05 PM

Then go play in the arena or CFL league until you're NFL eligible. If you're NFL material, they'll find you even. But that doesn't happen. Unless you have some college cred behind you, most of those venues don't take you seriously. Of course in the current system they don't even have to do that. They just cheat. If you don't think every major program has had kids go through that had someone else take their test to get in and had a tutor do their work to make it through, your fooling yourself.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 02:06 PM

That's not quite the same thing as blaming anyone else for their failure to take advantage of a free education. All anyone can ask for is the opportunity and every single college football player gets that opportunity.

I do agree with you in a sense. I do think there should be an option for the moron's, but I don't think making them university employees is the answer.

Does anyone here know, what is the age limit for the CFL?

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 02:08 PM

But that doesn't happen. Unless you have some college cred behind you, most of those venues don't take you seriously. Of course in the current system they don't even have to do that. They just cheat. If you don't think every major program has had kids go through that had someone else take their test to get in and had a tutor do their work to make it through, your fooling yourself.
My statement was not meant to imply the current state of affairs, but instead how things should be. I also find it hard to believe that high-school all-american couldn't get a serious look from an AFL or CFL team. We just haven't seen anyone attempt it yet.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 02:10 PM

edit: and if college is not for you, college football is not for you.

Then fine, make it work that way & you'll hear nary a peep from me about paying the players.

Problem is ... it doesn't work that way, or at least not often enough for it not to be something I consider problematic.

A particular case in point that comes to mind is a highly regarded college football star who: Was functionally illiterate when he was handed his high school diploma (we're talking can't spell "Cat" if you spot him the C-A-? sort of illiterate) ... He's still functionally illiterate after several years of "higher education". He gives less than a rat's ass about college/education, and nobody in "education" gives a rat's ass about him ... except that he's one helluva football player.

That's anecdotal, but it damned sure doesn't seem to be unique either.

So ... let's just cut the bull, pay 'em like the university employees that they are, stop cluttering the classrooms with them, and stop the whole damn charade that they bear any resemblence to a "student"-athlete.

Noop

08-13-2004, 02:10 PM

Let's make this personal, noop. Would you go to college if you were not going to play football? If you had a choice between college and a football minor league sponsored by the NFL where you could make 75-100K a year to develop, which would you choose?
I would go pro because in college I would work hard for nothing where as in the pro's I can make a couple of k and if I decided I could goto college. But if I am a star I would never step foot on campus because I have made my money.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 02:11 PM

My statement was not meant to imply the current state of affairs, but instead how things should be. I also find it hard to believe that high-school all-american couldn't get a serious look from an AFL or CFL team. We just haven't seen anyone attempt it yet.

I think the problem with that is the physical maturity issue. The CFL or AFL isn't the NFL, but there are still some pretty big boys there and the kids just out of high school would just get clobbered.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:13 PM

My statement was not meant to imply the current state of affairs, but instead how things should be. I also find it hard to believe that high-school all-american couldn't get a serious look from an AFL or CFL team. We just haven't seen anyone attempt it yet.
Again, why would they? The school recruiting them will make sure they make it in, and it is a lot easier to get into the NFL with millions of fans watching and magazines/newspaper following your every breath than it is with 15,000 watching and no one caring.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:17 PM

I would go pro because in college I would work hard for nothing where as in the pro's I can make a couple of k and if I decided I could goto college. But if I am a star I would never step foot on campus because I have made my money.

Case in point. (Not saying noop couldn't make it through college, but FORCING someone to go to college is not the best way to get someone to use the opportunity.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:19 PM

I think the problem with that is the physical maturity issue. The CFL or AFL isn't the NFL, but there are still some pretty big boys there and the kids just out of high school would just get clobbered.
Good point, and yet another, where are the good coaches? Which have better facilities, Arena league teams or college teams? Your npt going to develop half as well in the Arena league as you are in a major university program.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:20 PM

I'm going off on a tagent. Time to shut up. :)

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 02:22 PM

Again, why would they? The school recruiting them will make sure they make it in, and it is a lot easier to get into the NFL with millions of fans watching and magazines/newspaper following your every breath than it is with 15,000 watching and no one caring.
Because I thought the point was to get paid while preparing for a career in the NFL. That's why they might play for 75K in one of these leagues for 3 years instead.

cthomer5000

08-13-2004, 02:23 PM

I'm going off on a tagent. Time to shut up. :)
I just don't see how anyone can think paying "college" football players is a good idea. It would cease to be "college" football at that moment.

Axxon

08-13-2004, 02:26 PM

I'm supposed to feel sorry for him cause he has a child without any means of financially supporting it? Quit football and get a job like the rest of us. Or his girlfriend can quit school and work while he finishes.

Honestly, I can't find one example in the thread nor can I imagine a scenario where anyone would give a flying fuck who you feel sorry for.

I don't feel sorry for him either. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the system. When you stop thinking the world revolves around your personal feelings you'd be surprised, you can get a lot accomplished.

Noop

08-13-2004, 02:29 PM

Axxon

08-13-2004, 02:36 PM

It sucks for him, but he had a kid, deal with it like a man. If I had a kid, I would have had to drop out of school because I couldn't afford both. It sucks, but get over it and grow the fuck up.

And this nicely solves the entire NCAA problem right? We should judge the entire system based on our personal feelings about this one guy. Makes sense to me.
:rolleyes:

May be my first rolleyes ever btw. May not be, of course, but I don't use them often. :)

JHandley

08-13-2004, 02:36 PM

Because I thought the point was to get paid while preparing for a career in the NFL. That's why they might play for 75K in one of these leagues for 3 years instead.

That's exactly right. Paying college players is like trying to have it both ways. The current system works because of the attention and thus the money. In a minor league system, the money simply won't be there and it all falls apart from there.

The only system that I've heard that might work is to create a Football (baseball, basketball, hockey) Studies degree. Still not paying the players, any more than they're being paid now, but make a degree to teach them how to be a professional athlete.

Axxon

08-13-2004, 02:40 PM

Ouch.

I'm in an anti selfish jerk mode. I hit Easy too but not as bad. He's a fellow Greenvillian. ;)

Seriously, I don't get the attitude where anyone thinks that their own feelings, without examination, are the solutions to situations. Come on people, the world doesn't revolve around you ( or me ) specifically. Try to at least apply more than personal feelings if you enter a discussion. :)

Axxon

08-13-2004, 02:48 PM

Exactly. This is way the "pay the players" advocates blow my mind. They're being paid - they get a free shot at a fucking college education!

As soon as you talk about paying them cash, we're not even talking about college football anymore.

It breaks down though. I was an academic scholarship student. I wasn't restricted from working or otherwise taking money from anyone who wished to give it to me.

College athletes are restricted in this manner. Since most of them won't be pro players there's a glaring inequity in the system. There simpy is.

I could be paid millions for going to school and still keep my full boat ride but Joe Athlete can't. That's wrong. Period.

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 02:52 PM

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:54 PM

Because I thought the point was to get paid while preparing for a career in the NFL. That's why they might play for 75K in one of these leagues for 3 years instead.
As pointed out above:

a) right now these leagues would not provide nearly as good a venue to develop the kid. He has almost no chance of progressing well enough to become a NFL player.

b) They do not pay $75,000 dollars a year, esp. to a kid straight out of school, because

c) The school and the kid is going to cheat to get him into a college program anyway. That maybe the way you like it (ignore the cheating, pretend it is not there, and everything is alright), but I think it does a diservice to the kids and the schools.

BTW, I'm not as much for paying the kids as I am for a NFL sponsored minor leagues. The NFL is bigger and takes in more revenue than any other pro sport, yet they can't afford to pay for their own player development?

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 02:56 PM

It breaks down though. I was an academic scholarship student. I wasn't restricted from working or otherwise taking money from anyone who wished to give it to me.

College athletes are restricted in this manner. Since most of them won't be pro players there's a glaring inequity in the system. There simpy is.

I could be paid millions for going to school and still keep my full boat ride but Joe Athlete can't. That's wrong. Period.
Which would be another way to solve the problem. Let them work. Sure, big programs will get the kids high paying jobs from boosters, but so? That money would not come out of the pockets of the school.

Axxon

08-13-2004, 02:58 PM

I'm the third man in here but what is the problem with this? There are tons of kids struggling through life to make ends meet. This guy is probably better off than 90% of them.

Nobody forced this kid to sign on for this gig and he's very close to getting a degree.

Perhaps you could make the arguement they should be allowed to work though but judging by the time issues in the article I don't see how some kids could.

Again. :)

So the entire NCAA system is being judged by this one guy's story?

There should be ( as opposed to needs to be ) a rethinking of the system but as long as we make value judgements of specific examples then we won't get anywhere.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 02:58 PM

BTW, I'm not as much for paying the kids as I am for a NFL sponsored minor leagues.

But the colleges are going to fight them tooth & nail on anything that remotely resembles that, football is too big a cash cow for them not to.

I go back to my earlier comment -- the mega football programs are a marketing tool, plain & simple. Instead of 4-color brochures, they use the "spectacle & granduer that is college football" ... they aren't trading out classroom time for printing the brochures, why insist that classroom time is the only way to pay these particular suppliers?

Axxon

08-13-2004, 03:00 PM

Which would be another way to solve the problem. Let them work. Sure, big programs will get the kids high paying jobs from boosters, but so? That money would not come out of the pockets of the school.

Isn't that happening already?

Actually, someone suggested school approved work programs and honestly, this should be the case for both types of scholarship students. I've heard about strippers losing their scholarships etc.

The schools want to assume the role of educators, both socially and educationally, let them set up approved work programs. If it becomes booster abuse, continue to punish the schools. It's not that hard.

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 03:00 PM

Again. :)

So the entire NCAA system is being judged by this one guy's story?

There should be ( as opposed to needs to be ) a rethinking of the system but as long as we make value judgements of specific examples then we won't get anywhere.

I don't have a problem with it and don't consider this story at all in that context.

You want to argue a spreading of the wealth thing fine.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 03:02 PM

why does the NFL need an official minor league? Why not just have each team have one salary cap for its roster and one for its practice/development squad and make that squad big enough to in effect be a minor league team. Let these practice/development squads play the same schedule as the "majors" squad only the day before/after (before would generate more money)

You have the marketing power of the NFL built right in because on Saturday you can go watch Maurice Clarett play for your team and then go back the next day to watch the real team play. Make rules like they can be called up to the main team but not sent back down and set the cap for the development team much lower. Let the team assistant coaches coach the development teams.

The players learn their team's system, they are associated with an NFL team, the NFL makes more money by taking the money out of the NCAA's pockets for Saturday football and the NFL doesn't need to operate more teams or venues - its all built right in.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:05 PM

You do know the average playing span of an NFL player right?

Economically it's a waste of money for the NFL to do that.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 03:05 PM

But the colleges are going to fight them tooth & nail on anything that remotely resembles that, football is too big a cash cow for them not to.

What possible argument can the colleges make against the NFL? A college can't force someone to go to college if they would rather enter the workforce after they graduate. I don't think there would be anything the colleges could do about it.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:06 PM

Axxon

08-13-2004, 03:07 PM

I don't have a problem with it and don't consider this story at all in that context.

You want to argue a spreading of the wealth thing fine.

I'm so far from arguing spreading the wealth it's not funny. Not that I think that's a bad argument.

I'm arguing letting them earn a living. And know what, the example Skydog cited. I don't think that was abuse. College athletes have name recognition. If they are driving the truck and people recognize them, well, that's value for the money. So they parked it in a well travelled spot. As long as they hang out there too ( which they may not have done granted but that's a minor problem to solve ) they could well have been worth the money.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:08 PM

You do know the average playing span of an NFL player right?

Economically it's a waste of money for the NFL to do that.

Because they have a free system doing it for them. Correct, but we are talking shoulds. I don't ever dream that people would be resonable and look at the best interest of the players.

JonInMiddleGA

08-13-2004, 03:08 PM

What possible argument can the colleges make against the NFL? A college can't force someone to go to college if they would rather enter the workforce after they graduate. I don't think there would be anything the colleges could do about it.

I'd say you're dramatically underestimating the amount of clout, political & otherwise, that'd be brought to bear on the NFL if they got too close to the sacred cow of college football.

Even if every argument they made was pure b.s., there's enough football interested alums in Congress and/or state legislatures that I believe you'd see all sorts of legal maneuevers ... all phrased in the interest of "what's best for the children" of course.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 03:08 PM

You do know the average playing span of an NFL player right?

Economically it's a waste of money for the NFL to do that.

Im assuming thats in reply to the idea of a NFL minor league but what does that have to do with their playing span? They would be playing the years they would have in the NCAA in either the NFL or the NFL minors so how does that change the playing span?

And how is it a waste of money? You sell out your arena twice a week instead of once and if selling it out the first time paying twice as much in salary to players is profitable how can selling it out the second time for the minor league game not be profitable?

And you don't think ABC/NBC/ESPN/FOX would pick up these minor league games every week? They want anything they can get with the NFL stamp on it - why would they not show what eventually would amount to NCAA all-star teams playing and show all the kids not good enough to ever go pro college games instead?

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:13 PM

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:14 PM

I'd say you're dramatically underestimating the amount of clout, political & otherwise, that'd be brought to bear on the NFL if they got too close to the sacred cow of college football.

Even if every argument they made was pure b.s., there's enough football interested alums in Congress and/or state legislatures that I believe you'd see all sorts of legal maneuevers ... all phrased in the interest of "what's best for the children" of course.
Your right as rain, but it doesn't mean "that" is right.

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 03:23 PM

And this nicely solves the entire NCAA problem right? We should judge the entire system based on our personal feelings about this one guy. Makes sense to me.
:rolleyes:

May be my first rolleyes ever btw. May not be, of course, but I don't use them often. :)
If anything deserves an eyeroll, its you for taking a post completely out of context... did I say that the NCAA structure should be supported because of this one kid? No. Learn to fucking read a quote for what it is instead of trying to put your own bias into it.

More on topic
If I get good grades in college, should I be paid for it? The school gets more students by being rated higher among schools, more grant money, more money in general... so should I be paid above whatever scholarships I get?

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 03:25 PM

More on topic
If I get good grades in college, should I be paid for it? The school gets more students by being rated higher among schools, more grant money, more money in general... so should I be paid above whatever scholarships I get?

It's the immediacy of milions of bowl dollars in the door that clouds the issue. You could turn that around and say if I kick ass on the field do I get paid for it. In terms of the NFL, yes.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:26 PM

Im assuming thats in reply to the idea of a NFL minor league but what does that have to do with their playing span? They would be playing the years they would have in the NCAA in either the NFL or the NFL minors so how does that change the playing span?

And how is it a waste of money? You sell out your arena twice a week instead of once and if selling it out the first time paying twice as much in salary to players is profitable how can selling it out the second time for the minor league game not be profitable?

And you don't think ABC/NBC/ESPN/FOX would pick up these minor league games every week? They want anything they can get with the NFL stamp on it - why would they not show what eventually would amount to NCAA all-star teams playing and show all the kids not good enough to ever go pro college games instead?

Well for one thing 2 or 3% of everyone who plays football at any college goes to the NFL. Yes that includes those 5-star recruits.

Do you think you can go look at an 18 year old kid now and say without a doubt, this guy is going to be playing on Sundays? No and neither can professional scouts who are paid to do that.

The average lifespan of an NFL player last I checked was just over 4 years. So now let's say 5-10% (and that is given the fact your scouts lucked out on a couple of them) of those guys that are playing in your minor league system make it. You have spent an awful lot of money for a chance that 4 or 5 players a year might make your squad for 4 seasons.

Also how are they going to restrict anyone from going or trying out? You are talking about thousands and thousands of high schools. Sure they can do the drills but can they play football?

Any wide-eyed 17-18 year old kid is going to flock down there to try out. You think the NFL is willing to pay when some of them get hurt perhaps even debilitated?

It's a dream concept but it just wouldn't work in reality.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 03:27 PM

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:28 PM

Well for one thing 2 or 3% of everyone who plays football at any college goes to the NFL. Yes that includes those 5-star recruits.

Do you think you can go look at an 18 year old kid now and say without a doubt, this guy is going to be playing on Sundays? No and neither can professional scouts who are paid to do that.

The average lifespan of an NFL player last I checked was just over 4 years. So now let's say 5-10% (and that is given the fact your scouts lucked out on a couple of them) of those guys that are playing in your minor league system make it. You have spent an awful lot of money for a chance that 4 or 5 players a year might make your squad for 4 seasons.

Also how are they going to restrict anyone from going or trying out? You are talking about thousands and thousands of high schools. Sure they can do the drills but can they play football?

Any wide-eyed 17-18 year old kid is going to flock down there to try out. You think the NFL is willing to pay when some of them get hurt perhaps even debilitated?

It's a dream concept but it just wouldn't work in reality.

Because the NCAA does it for them for free.

GrantDawg

08-13-2004, 03:29 PM

BTW, you can make the same arguements for Hockey, baseball, and international soccer, but they all seem to find the money to develop their own players.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:30 PM

Because the NCAA does it for them for free.

Well yes, but there is no way the NFL can financially do it also. Unless you don't want the NFL anymore.

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 03:30 PM

It's the immediacy of milions of bowl dollars in the door that clouds the issue. You could turn that around and say if I kick ass on the field do I get paid for it. In terms of the NFL, yes.
I think your spin on it is more equivalent to:
kick ass on field = NFL when I leave school
kick ass in school = better jon when i leave school

here is what I'm equating:
kick ass on field = money for school (exposure, recruits, reward for success)
kick ass in school = money for school (exposure, students, reward for success)

Is in necessarily proportional, no, but the argument is the same.

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 03:31 PM

BTW, you can make the same arguements for Hockey, baseball, and international soccer, but they all seem to find the money to develop their own players. yes, but those are white kids sports.... whoops, only Noop can bring race into a discussion.

I'd go on, but I think I may get banned if I try a longer discussion.

edit: unless Skydog/RyanS doesn't mind

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 03:33 PM

I think your spin on it is more equivalent to:
kick ass on field = NFL when I leave school
kick ass in school = better jon when i leave school

here is what I'm equating:
kick ass on field = money for school (exposure, recruits, reward for success)
kick ass in school = money for school (exposure, students, reward for success)

Is in necessarily proportional, no, but the argument is the same.

the kick ass in school money is much harder to get a handle on.

Easy Mac

08-13-2004, 03:34 PM

the kick ass in school money is much harder to get a handle on.
well, I think my performance alone cost my school a few prestige points.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 03:35 PM

Any attendance they draw from their cheaper game on Saturday would directly influence their drop in attendance on Sunday. I think the most they could hope for would be 20k, but those would have to be dramatically cheaper tickets. I think there would be very, very few poeple that would go to both games.

I don't think any of the major networks would touch it with a ten foot pole. Why would they give up their major college football money for, what amounts to, a minor league?

Ok if you take all the good players out of the NCAA and they are playing in the minor league NFL which one will be on TV? You think TV stations are going to pay millions of dollars to broadcast the games from a bunch of never-will-bes when they can broadcast games consisting of 32 teams of the best players in all of D1 football?

And how is that going to drop revenue on Sunday? You mean nobody goes to a college game on Saturday and then a pro one on Sunday? It will drop revenues alright - right out of the NCAA teams when nobody shows up to watch those games anymore because all the talent is in the NFL minors.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 03:38 PM

dola - just for the record I realize its not going to become reality - I just think that its a viable way of doing it from the NFL standpoint

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:40 PM

Ok if you take all the good players out of the NCAA and they are playing in the minor league NFL...

And that right there is the most difficult thing to determine even with those 5-star recruits.

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 03:42 PM

And that right there is the most difficult thing to determine even with those 5-star recruits.

or baseball recruits. same thing.

JHandley

08-13-2004, 03:46 PM

Ok if you take all the good players out of the NCAA and they are playing in the minor league NFL which one will be on TV? You think TV stations are going to pay millions of dollars to broadcast the games from a bunch of never-will-bes when they can broadcast games consisting of 32 teams of the best players in all of D1 football?

And how is that going to drop revenue on Sunday? You mean nobody goes to a college game on Saturday and then a pro one on Sunday? It will drop revenues alright - right out of the NCAA teams when nobody shows up to watch those games anymore because all the talent is in the NFL minors.

1. Yes, because the television stations don't give a damn about talent, they care about viewers. Seattle is a great example. UW is no where near as good as they have been in the past, they will still outdraw the Seahawks who are supposed to have a decent team this year. I believe people care more about their alma mater than they do about their hometown pro team. They have a honest connection, they aren't just fans, they are part of the team.

2. I'm saying that people won't go see a pro game on Saturday and then a pro game on Sunday. Again, Seattle is my example. The Mariners AAA club is 30 minutes down I-5 in Tacoma and the Raniers are no where near averaging 30k in attendance.

You may be right, I just don't see it. I think it's a great idea that would solve everyone's concerns about college football being corrupt, but it'll never see the light of day.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:48 PM

or baseball recruits. same thing.

except you are talking about a much bigger pool.

Buzzbee

08-13-2004, 03:49 PM

rkmsuf

08-13-2004, 03:49 PM

except you are talking about a much bigger pool.

true

sterlingice

08-13-2004, 03:49 PM

Honestly, I can't find one example in the thread nor can I imagine a scenario where anyone would give a flying fuck who you feel sorry for.

I don't feel sorry for him either. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the system. When you stop thinking the world revolves around your personal feelings you'd be surprised, you can get a lot accomplished.
Now, I threw in my two cents early on in the thread and have now just come back to catch up and I see this? Where the heck did this come from? You completely hijacked someone because he was commenting towards the original story in the first post. The was clearly a story meant to try and evoke sympathy for Swain and he was addressing someone directly addressing that aspect of the article. So, why the heck did you feel the need to come out and whack him on being topical towards what this thread was about in the first place. Dude, what's your problem?

SI

Axxon

08-13-2004, 03:52 PM

If anything deserves an eyeroll, its you for taking a post completely out of context... did I say that the NCAA structure should be supported because of this one kid? No. Learn to fucking read a quote for what it is instead of trying to put your own bias into it.

More on topic
If I get good grades in college, should I be paid for it? The school gets more students by being rated higher among schools, more grant money, more money in general... so should I be paid above whatever scholarships I get?

If that's where you're coming from, fine. I was going by the point of the thread which was the current NCAA structure with this case being an example, not the basis of the argument for or against. I think it's a valid distinction.

For the second paragraph, right now you very well could. No rules against it. But if you were simply a great athlete you couldn't. I think this is wrong.

I believe that colleges should exist to educate a young person to be able to succeed in the real world. For some kids, this means educating their body more than their mind. I don't see the problem.

I don't suggest not teaching the athlete more cerebral things but focus this in areas which will prepare him to deal with his life succesfully. Shakespeare may not be in his best interest where financial management might be.

Well rounded individuals may be a nice goal but fundamentally a functional and productive individual should be and if viewed this way, a school which prepares it's students for a professional sports career would be serving the goal of being a learning institution as well as an academic one.

Right now, this isn't happening.

IMHO I don't see that academics are more valued or more to be aimed for than athletics nor do I see the opposite. Each students best interest should be taken into account and their education should be guided that way.

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 03:55 PM

The Un-Ghosted Chubby

08-13-2004, 03:58 PM

I believe they are not allowed to work during the school year, but are allowed to have summer jobs. I note that he was enrolled in summer school, which, if paid for by his scholarship, could mean he was ineligible to work.

Incorrect. I worked 20+ hrs a week while playing a Div I sport both during school and the summer. Granted there's a big difference bewteen DI lacrosse and DI football at a BCS school.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 06:57 PM

Has anyone thought about that entity known as NFL Europe? Why is it in Europe, and not the USA? Couple of reasons. Foremost, to spread American Football around the world, increasing recognition, revenues, and potential player pool. Secondly, because it COULDN'T compete with the entrenched system that is College Football.

Also, Gary, ever heard of this thing that was called the USFL? Been to any of their games lately? Ever heard of this thing that was called the XFL? Been to any of their games lately? I didn't think so.

Apples and oranges, buzzbee.

Of course a bunch of NFL rejects and never-will-bes couldn't make the XFL popular - when Rod "He Hate Me" Smart is your big star you're not going to sell many tickets. So the revelation that a bunch of no-talent hacks can't compete with College Football isn't exactly breaking news.

What my theory does is takes the good players out of college football and places them in the NFL minors system. So you basically have 32 teams of the most highly thought of NCAA eligible players and all the leftovers get to play "college football". You mean to tell me a league of college all-stars playing against each other wouldn't be more exciting than watching a bunch of glorified high school football teams? Yes there would be surprise guys who didnt make the NFL minors and got drafted from college and there would be 5 star prospects that just suck in the NFL minors - that's life. But all in all I think that would be a solid system and a very profitable one for everyone involved except the NCAA and its universities.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 07:00 PM

2. I'm saying that people won't go see a pro game on Saturday and then a pro game on Sunday. Again, Seattle is my example. The Mariners AAA club is 30 minutes down I-5 in Tacoma and the Raniers are no where near averaging 30k in attendance.

Well really, who cares about minor league baseball? Its not like there is a massive demand for college baseball either so that's a bad example IMO.

I went to the University of Michigan - 110,000 people come out there every Saturday and I'm sure some of those 110,000 people trek over to Ford Field on Sunday to watch the Lions. If you take all the talent from U of M and stick it on a NFL "development team" I think that between the Michigan/college football fans and the NFL/Lions fans that you would sell pretty well over the weekend at Ford Field. But who knows, I could be wrong.

Gary Gorski

08-13-2004, 07:03 PM

Really I like Gary's idea, I don't mean to trash it but at some point there has to be a whittling down to figure out who can play and who can't. I think it's safe to say football is the more demanding physical sport and at 17-18 when most kids aren't even fully matured physically with no restrictions, it is asking for trouble.

Thanks HFP - just to clarify I don't think 18 year old boys have any business being on the same field as the men that play NFL football - but Im not suggesting they should either. They come out of high school, get drafted by a team and play 2-3 seasons for their minor league team and then they promote them to the bigs when ready - just like NCAA football except they are drafted much earlier and nobody has to pretend that they actually are going to school for a degree (or even pretend they are going to school for that matter)

JHandley

08-13-2004, 07:24 PM

Well really, who cares about minor league baseball? Its not like there is a massive demand for college baseball either so that's a bad example IMO.

I went to the University of Michigan - 110,000 people come out there every Saturday and I'm sure some of those 110,000 people trek over to Ford Field on Sunday to watch the Lions. If you take all the talent from U of M and stick it on a NFL "development team" I think that between the Michigan/college football fans and the NFL/Lions fans that you would sell pretty well over the weekend at Ford Field. But who knows, I could be wrong.

That's exactly my point. No one cares about minor league baseball. No one will care about minor league football, even if you call it a different name, it's still minor league football. The reason you get 110,000 fans at Michigan Stadium has just as much to do with the tradition of UM football as it does the players on the field.

Just as an aside. What is it about Ann Arbor that churns out text sim programmers?

HornedFrog Purple

08-13-2004, 07:34 PM

Thanks HFP - just to clarify I don't think 18 year old boys have any business being on the same field as the men that play NFL football - but Im not suggesting they should either. They come out of high school, get drafted by a team and play 2-3 seasons for their minor league team and then they promote them to the bigs when ready - just like NCAA football except they are drafted much earlier and nobody has to pretend that they actually are going to school for a degree (or even pretend they are going to school for that matter)

Well that's another thing too. It will take away the spectacle (and fun) of the NFL draft. At least as it is now most of the high picks you've seen once or twice in their college career on TV. I personally love watching the draft and it would be weird to see 32 picks-maybe of whom 10 I have really ever heard of. I say this because I honestly don't see a major network having much interest in picking up the games.

Now I have been critical of this idea so at least let me throw in a possible solution. Require two years of a college program before you can enter the minor league system. At least at this point, some of these kids can grow a little bit and have access to proper weight training, conditioning and mental preparation. And as a bonus, at least we the NFL fans have a little better idea of who is who in the draft.