NCAA Infractions Committee Report on USC - Ghosts of infractions past haunt SC

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

While it could happen, these kid of reports have been happening for the past 2 months

True. I won't celebrate until it is official.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

True. I won't celebrate until it is official.

I think it's for real this time. Too much smoke. And it makes sense, given the Auburn and Ohio State clusterbleeps.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If this is true, I am thinking of sending off an email to Coach Rick advising him to just go ahead and cheat away, since apparently there's little to no punishment for it (and he's going to have to cheat, when the staff across town has reknowned cheaters in the Kiffins and Eddie O).

I hope it paves the way to just paying these kids and dropping the whole amateur athlete fraud.

[bhlloy]

The university is pretty strenuously denying it, I think it's just more smoke and mirrors. There's no way in hell all the sanctions are going to be dropped, irrespective of what happens to OSU and Auburn

And yeah, the concept of college sports being amateur is a complete joke at this point. Just get it over with and either split major college sports into paid and not paid or at least allow the kids to get sponsorship deals and allow for a reasonable amount of compensation from the programs.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think the University has no choice but to deny it. It would piss off the ncaa to have the decision made public before it was official.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I hope it paves the way to just paying these kids and dropping the whole amateur athlete fraud.

Anyone that thinks paying these kids would work simply doesn't understand NCAA athletics and the finances involved.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Anyone that thinks paying these kids would work simply doesn't understand NCAA athletics and the finances involved.

Why not? Why not let schools pay the kids what they feel they are worth? Why does college athletics have to be different from every other job in this country?

I had a job in college making phone calls to alumni for donations. Then working in the computer lab. They paid me money for doing that. Why not do the same thing with kids who play football?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I had a job in college making phone calls to alumni for donations. Then working in the computer lab. They paid me money for doing that. Why not do the same thing with kids who play football?

They do. The athletes get free tuition, room, and board. So they are paid.

However, the problem is the amount of money made off these kids while pretending it's all "amateur", and the draconian rules that make it impossible for the kids to earn any outside spending money that other students on a scholarship can.

The key to lifting the restrictions is not so the kids can be paid by the University, it's to let the boosters pay the big-time kids that come to the school and to let the smalltime kids work for spending money without killing any future eligibility.

[RainMaker]

The free tuition is such crap. A player brings in millions to a school and you'll give him some free college credits. Real fair trade-off.

Kids are already being paid. They are already getting benefits. It's just now it has to be done secretly and only certain schools have to abide by the rules. Just level the playing field, let everyone pay what they feel a player is worth. As an added benefit, you'll probably get more kids staying in school and playing out their college career.

It's slave labor no matter how you guys dress it up.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why not? Why not let schools pay the kids what they feel they are worth? Why does college athletics have to be different from every other job in this country?

Because the vast majority of university athletic programs lose money. You think tax-payers are going to be happy with contributing even more of their state tax dollars to pay kids to play sports? Not going to happen.

And to pooh-pooh the amount of money these kids get in free tuition, room & board, books and tutoring is ignorant. These kids are getting significant value for their efforts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Because the vast majority of university athletic programs lose money. You think tax-payers are going to be happy with contributing even more of their state tax dollars to pay kids to play sports? Not going to happen.

I know it's not going to happen. Schools enjoy the free labor and having a monopoly on the industry. It's a great setup.

Schools dump millions into coaching staffs that bring in money. So putting money toward players is no different. Each school can budget what they want for their athletic department and particular sports and work from there. And many programs lose money because of their own poor financial decisions (bowls which cost most schools money over a playoff). Tough to cry over that.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And to pooh-pooh the amount of money these kids get in free tuition, room & board, books and tutoring is ignorant. These kids are getting significant value for their efforts.

Cam Newton sure got signifigant value. He made Auburn tens of millions of dollars. Will continue to do so long after he's left the school. And in return he received a couple semesters of paid tuition and a dorm room. Seems like a great trade-off.

But there is a way to determine if you're right. Allow schools to pay athletes. If what you say is true and they are getting signifigant value, then no schools should be interested in paying these kids. I mean they are already getting a great value and that's that. But I think we both know that's not true.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know it's not going to happen. Schools enjoy the free labor and having a monopoly on the industry. It's a great setup.

Again, you ignore the fact that the vast majority of schools lose money on college athletics.

Schools dump millions into coaching staffs that bring in money. So putting money toward players is no different. Each school can budget what they want for their athletic department and particular sports and work from there. And many programs lose money because of their own poor financial decisions (bowls which cost most schools money over a playoff). Tough to cry over that.

No, you simply don't understand how college athletics finances work. Once again - the vast, vast majority of schools lose money on athletics. Unless Title 9 is repealed or highly modified, that will continue to be the case.

You also probably don't realize that a significant portion of coaching salaries are paid for not by the schools, but directly from boosters and from TV & radio deals for coach's shows.

Cam Newton sure got signifigant value. He made Auburn tens of millions of dollars. Will continue to do so long after he's left the school. And in return he received a couple semesters of paid tuition and a dorm room. Seems like a great trade-off.

Cam Newton did get great value, yes. How much of that value he chose to take advantage of is up to him.

But there is a way to determine if you're right. Allow schools to pay athletes. If what you say is true and they are getting signifigant value, then no schools should be interested in paying these kids. I mean they are already getting a great value and that's that. But I think we both know that's not true.

I happen to think that free tuition, free food, free housing, free books, free study aids, free academic tutoring and free health care at institutes of higher education is a tremendous value. Depending on the institution and whether a kid is out of state, you're looking at easily $50K a year in value at most places, and for out of state kids quite a bit more than that. Not to mention the lifetime benefit that said education can provide.

Even if you magically got rid of Title 9, and schools could pay football and men's basketball players whatever they felt like without having to provide matching payments to women's teams, and it was a true free market for players (something that isn't true in any of the major professional sports leagues I might add), you'd end up with a vastly less level playing field than currently exists. You think Boise State gets the short end of the stick in the current system? They'd become nothing in a free market - they simply can't come anywhere near matching the revenues of giants like Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Florida, etc.

If there are college football and basketball superstars out there that feel they aren't getting proper compensation for what they are providing to schools, here's who they should really direct their anger at:

1) The Civil Rights and Women's equality movements that applied enough pressure to elected officials to pass Title 9 legislation and further amendments (significantly the Javits Amendment) that specified the application of Title 9 provisions towards collegiate athletics

2) The general public's disinterest in college sports other than football and men's basketball

3) Their fellow athletes that play sports that are a money drain - essentially Cam Newton subsidizes several members of the Auburn women's golf & gymnastic teams

[Arles]

If college kids don't want to play college football or basketball, go to Europe, the D-League, UFL, CFL or other international basketball leagues and get paid. If you want the exposure of US colleges, you need to be an amateur.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Again, you ignore the fact that the vast majority of schools lose money on college athletics.

No, you simply don't understand how college athletics finances work. Once again - the vast, vast majority of schools lose money on athletics. Unless Title 9 is repealed or highly modified, that will continue to be the case.

And that's still irrelevant. Those schools who don't make money don't need to pay players. Just as they don't need to pay a coach millions of dollars. And don't need to agree to play in a bowl game that will cost them millions of dollars. All schools willingly accept to take on these expenses to have athletics at their school. Expenses don't need to go up at all. Schools don't have to pay players. They can re-allocate their spends if they like. Again, it's up to schools to determine how they spend their athletic budget. Whether that's on a high profile coach, giant scoreboard, or a Heisman candidate.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You also probably don't realize that a significant portion of coaching salaries are paid for not by the schools, but directly from boosters and from TV & radio deals for coach's shows.

That's great. They can foot the bill for players they want too and take the pressure off the school. If boosters want to put together a pile of money for the next big recruit, have at it. Saves us all this time having to hide this stuff and investigate it. Why does it matter to you if some rich alumni or agent wants to buy Reggie Bush a car? Why do you care if a player holds a job on the side while he plays sports?

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I happen to think that free tuition, free food, free housing, free books, free study aids, free academic tutoring and free health care at institutes of higher education is a tremendous value. Depending on the institution and whether a kid is out of state, you're looking at easily $50K a year in value at most places, and for out of state kids quite a bit more than that. Not to mention the lifetime benefit that said education can provide.

And like I said, if you truly believe this, you would have no problem with a free market for athletes. I mean no one is going to pay athletes if they are already getting such incredible value, right?

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Even if you magically got rid of Title 9, and schools could pay football and men's basketball players whatever they felt like without having to provide matching payments to women's teams, and it was a true free market for players (something that isn't true in any of the major professional sports leagues I might add), you'd end up with a vastly less level playing field than currently exists. You think Boise State gets the short end of the stick in the current system? They'd become nothing in a free market - they simply can't come anywhere near matching the revenues of giants like Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Florida, etc.

How is that different than what we have now? Bigger schools with better facilities and better exposure will almost always draw in the better players. Are teams in the Sun Belt on the same level as the SEC? And since when did college sports fans start caring about parity? Your primary sport has a postseason that gives automatic bids to some conferences and none to others based on nothing more than prestige. So drop the level playing field crap, we know you guys don't give two shits about it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

If college kids don't want to play college football or basketball, go to Europe, the D-League, UFL, CFL or other international basketball leagues and get paid. If you want the exposure of US colleges, you need to be an amateur.

Sorry, that's still bull. It's akin to telling a musician "despite your ability to sell out major arenas across the country, we won't allow you to get paid for doing so at any of them. But you're free to make a living singing for pennies at local bars if you want". Then pretending that it's a free market and the choice is theirs.

I used to believe what you wrote, but have changed my mind on the topic. It's nothing more than market manipulation. The NCAA has a monopoly on sports at that age bracket. They've banded together to restrict those in that age from making money so that they can hoard it for themselves. If any company did that, people would be irate. But since it's sports, who gives a shit if a bunch of young adults get exploited.

[Logan]

We've been through this with RM many, many times before. Save your breath.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cam Newton sure got signifigant value. He made Auburn tens of millions of dollars. Will continue to do so long after he's left the school. And in return he received a couple semesters of paid tuition and a dorm room. Seems like a great trade-off.

And the #1 overall pick in the NFL draft, with millions about to come his way.

[BillJasper]

If you pay college football and basketball players... then it's not about whose the best on the field. It's about whose the best at raising money.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know it's not going to happen. Schools enjoy the free labor and having a monopoly on the industry. It's a great setup.

Schools dump millions into coaching staffs that bring in money. So putting money toward players is no different. Each school can budget what they want for their athletic department and particular sports and work from there. And many programs lose money because of their own poor financial decisions (bowls which cost most schools money over a playoff). Tough to cry over that.



Cam Newton sure got signifigant value. He made Auburn tens of millions of dollars. Will continue to do so long after he's left the school. And in return he received a couple semesters of paid tuition and a dorm room. Seems like a great trade-off.

But there is a way to determine if you're right. Allow schools to pay athletes. If what you say is true and they are getting signifigant value, then no schools should be interested in paying these kids. I mean they are already getting a great value and that's that. But I think we both know that's not true.

Yeah, because the entire system should be adjusted for the two dozen guys a year nation wide that make more money for the school then the other way around. Neal Caudle sure didn't make Auburn tens of millions, and got the same free things. They should probably ask for their money back in his case. Or maybe Newton can pay the school back for the offensive linemen they recruit that don't make the school millions in jersey sales but happen to make his sorry ass look good.

Is the system socialist? Sure is. So is a salary cap, revenue sharing and a draft rewarding weaker teams. They'll get used to it.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Or maybe Newton can pay the school back for the offensive linemen they recruit that don't make the school millions in jersey sales but happen to make his sorry ass look good.

Is the system socialist? Sure is. So is a salary cap, revenue sharing and a draft rewarding weaker teams. They'll get used to it.

Why would I take serious protecting a guy getting paid if I'm not getting paid as well? Why sacrifice my body to make a catch in traffic if the QB is getting paid and I'm not?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Is the system socialist? Sure is. So is a salary cap, revenue sharing and a draft rewarding weaker teams. They'll get used to it.

It's not socialist. If it was that, all the kids would be getting a cut of the wealth.

Simple question for you guys. Why does it matter if an agent buys Reggie Bush a car? Why do you care if these kids can get jobs to pay their bills? Why does it matter if they sell their own possesions? Even if you are against schools paying kids for their work, why does it have to control aspects of their life outside of school?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Simple question for you guys. Why does it matter if an agent buys Reggie Bush a car? Why do you care if these kids can get jobs to pay their bills? Why does it matter if they sell their own possesions? Even if you are against schools paying kids for their work, why does it have to control aspects of their life outside of school?

Jealousy? I can't think of anything else (I've heard a bunch of people argue the shtick, "when I was in college I had to eat tuna fish, nobody was buying me cars..."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Simple question for you guys. Why does it matter ...

The lack of character displayed by willful violations of conditions voluntarily accepted is troubling at the macro level, the micro level issues are not only too numerous to detail here but also aren't so obscure as to require explanation either.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Simple question for you guys. Why does it matter if an agent buys Reggie Bush a car? Why do you care if these kids can get jobs to pay their bills? Why does it matter if they sell their own possesions? Even if you are against schools paying kids for their work, why does it have to control aspects of their life outside of school?

Bill answered the question before you even asked it.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If you pay college football and basketball players... then it's not about whose the best on the field. It's about whose the best at raising money.

[molson]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Bill answered the question before you even asked it.

Isn't raising money already the key to winning at college football? The programs sure act like it is.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And that's still irrelevant. Those schools who don't make money don't need to pay players. Just as they don't need to pay a coach millions of dollars. And don't need to agree to play in a bowl game that will cost them millions of dollars. All schools willingly accept to take on these expenses to have athletics at their school. Expenses don't need to go up at all. Schools don't have to pay players. They can re-allocate their spends if they like. Again, it's up to schools to determine how they spend their athletic budget. Whether that's on a high profile coach, giant scoreboard, or a Heisman candidate.

So basically, you want a system where the few schools that can pay football players (beyond what they're paid in tuition, room & board, books, tutoring, etc) and put out an equal distribution of compensation to their female athletes (due to Title 9 requirements) are able to buy up the best players. Given your hard-on for programs like Boise State, I'm a little surprised to see you pushing for an even less equitable situation.

That's great. They can foot the bill for players they want too and take the pressure off the school. If boosters want to put together a pile of money for the next big recruit, have at it. Saves us all this time having to hide this stuff and investigate it. Why does it matter to you if some rich alumni or agent wants to buy Reggie Bush a car? Why do you care if a player holds a job on the side while he plays sports?

I kind of enjoy a playing field that is a little more level than just which school has the richest, most football-obsessed alumni. You think things are skewed now? It would be nothing compared to what you are advocating.

And like I said, if you truly believe this, you would have no problem with a free market for athletes. I mean no one is going to pay athletes if they are already getting such incredible value, right?

I believe that football and basketball players are providing more financial value to their schools than athletes in other sports, yes. Football and basketball players are subsidizing the ability of other athletes to get scholarships to play track & field, cross country, crew, soccer, gymnastics, volleyball, etc.

I believe that if a true free market for college athletes were established (and again, none of the major professional sports leagues are true free markets), you'd see an initial gush of money, but over time few players would make much money, and you'd see far more athletes pushed aside than currently happens. Yeah, there is attrition on college football rosters, but nothing like what would happen in a free market. That 3rd string WR that gets a free ride to school for 4-5 years? He might skate by now to provide depth and leadership, but in a free market system? He'd be cut by year 2. This is a good thing?

How is that different than what we have now? Bigger schools with better facilities and better exposure will almost always draw in the better players. Are teams in the Sun Belt on the same level as the SEC?

You really can't be this stupid, can you? Things are not a level playing field now, that is true. But it is far, far more level than it would be if you allowed boosters to openly pay players. When you add potential salaries to the list of factors for choosing a school, then a guy that would normally be less inclined to ride the bench at Ohio State if he can be a star at Indiana is going to re-think that.

And since when did college sports fans start caring about parity? Your primary sport has a postseason that gives automatic bids to some conferences and none to others based on nothing more than prestige. So drop the level playing field crap, we know you guys don't give two shits about it.

Nothing more than "prestige"? See, this is yet another example of your utter ignorance of college football. That "prestige" is based on "ability" and "resume" - the big boy conferences get the auto-bids because their teams are better. In whatever world you live in, winning games against the likes of a Tulane or Memphis or UAB is the same as winning games against the likes of Auburn, Alabama or Florida.

Do us all a favor and just stop following college sports since you clearly don't understand it, and don't care to.

You continue to ignore the reality of Title 9, and you continue to give little credibility to the experience that these kids are getting by being granted free rides to these Universities. Cynics like you get so hung up on the bad news stories that you ignore all the great stories about the kids that normally wouldn't have had a chance to go to college otherwise, and taking full advantage of that opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. There are tons of those stories out there if you care to look for them, but if you want to focus on the idiots like Cam Newton, that's all you're ever going to see.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So basically, you want a system where the few schools that can pay football players (beyond what they're paid in tuition, room & board, books, tutoring, etc) and put out an equal distribution of compensation to their female athletes (due to Title 9 requirements) are able to buy up the best players. Given your hard-on for programs like Boise State, I'm a little surprised to see you pushing for an even less equitable situation.

I kind of enjoy a playing field that is a little more level than just which school has the richest, most football-obsessed alumni. You think things are skewed now? It would be nothing compared to what you are advocating.

Title 9 has not been tested against a landscape of paid college athletes, only scholarships. It could be an interesting legal battle but its an open question. The language of title 9 itself is brief and vague, and there's plenty of people who have argued that title 9 has been unfairly used as universities as an excuse - Title 9 certainly doesn't require funding to be equal across genders, and it wouldn't necessarily require paying female athletes the same as men. (And it certainly doesn't require or restrict athletes from doing anything, especially on their own time with regards to agents and boosters)

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You really can't be this stupid, can you?

...

Do us all a favor and just stop following college sports

LOL. You're really passionate about this.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So basically, you want a system where the few schools that can pay football players (beyond what they're paid in tuition, room & board, books, tutoring, etc) and put out an equal distribution of compensation to their female athletes (due to Title 9 requirements) are able to buy up the best players. Given your hard-on for programs like Boise State, I'm a little surprised to see you pushing for an even less equitable situation.

Schools paying kids isn't even close to my biggest gripe with the system. But if a school feels that it's worth paying everyone in their athletic program a certain amount of money, then so be it. Almost every school pays students to perform jobs on campus.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I kind of enjoy a playing field that is a little more level than just which school has the richest, most football-obsessed alumni. You think things are skewed now? It would be nothing compared to what you are advocating.

This is a joke, right? You enjoy a level playing field and love college sports. I don't care to debate the merits of parity in college sports, just find it funny when you are forced to argue for it in a level that is popular because it doesn't have any.

I believe that football and basketball players are providing more financial value to their schools than athletes in other sports, yes. Football and basketball players are subsidizing the ability of other athletes to get scholarships to play track & field, cross country, crew, soccer, gymnastics, volleyball, etc.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I believe that if a true free market for college athletes were established (and again, none of the major professional sports leagues are true free markets), you'd see an initial gush of money, but over time few players would make much money, and you'd see far more athletes pushed aside than currently happens. Yeah, there is attrition on college football rosters, but nothing like what would happen in a free market. That 3rd string WR that gets a free ride to school for 4-5 years? He might skate by now to provide depth and leadership, but in a free market system? He'd be cut by year 2. This is a good thing?

Schools can make their own decisions on whether to pay or not. Athletes can then make their own decisions on what school is best for them. But lets concede the school paying part completely. Why can't Reggie Bush sign autographs for money when playing at USC? Why can't Tyrelle Pryor sell things that he fucking owns? Half your argument is that this is all great for college kids yet completely ignore that they are being denied the ability to make money outside of school. If you're a Chemist and a major pharmaceutical company came in and offered you a huge signing bonus for when you graduate, you'd be perfectly fine with that. But if it's an athlete, it's apparently wrong.

So what makes the difference in these students?

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You really can't be this stupid, can you? Things are not a level playing field now, that is true. But it is far, far more level than it would be if you allowed boosters to openly pay players. When you add potential salaries to the list of factors for choosing a school, then a guy that would normally be less inclined to ride the bench at Ohio State if he can be a star at Indiana is going to re-think that.

How is allowing a kid to choose the best situation for him a bad thing? Do you really hate these kids that much? If riding the bench at Ohio State is a better move for his life, shouldn't you be happy for him? Isn't that the whole goal of college? It's becoming clear that their lives mean shit if it interferes in any way with you getting to watch players play where you want them to.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You continue to ignore the reality of Title 9, and you continue to give little credibility to the experience that these kids are getting by being granted free rides to these Universities. Cynics like you get so hung up on the bad news stories that you ignore all the great stories about the kids that normally wouldn't have had a chance to go to college otherwise, and taking full advantage of that opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. There are tons of those stories out there if you care to look for them, but if you want to focus on the idiots like Cam Newton, that's all you're ever going to see.

This is such a hypocritical load of shit. You want to argue that this is to better the life of themselves and families while the rules do the exact opposite. Fuck, the NCAA just passed a rule that made it harder for kids to declare early for the NBA draft. That's like telling an MBA student he can't interview for jobs till he graduates.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Title 9 has not been tested against a landscape of paid college athletes, only scholarships. It could be an interesting legal battle but its an open question. The language of title 9 itself is brief and vague, and there's plenty of people who have argued that title 9 has been unfairly used as universities as an excuse - Title 9 certainly doesn't require funding to be equal across genders, and it wouldn't necessarily require paying female athletes the same as men. (And it certainly doesn't require or restrict athletes from doing anything, especially on their own time with regards to agents and boosters)

I agree with that, but I'm not even arguing the school part much. I just don't understand why an athlete can't make money outside of the school. For all the bullshit dawgfan is feeding us about how this is "for the kids", he sure seems to have a problem with those kids making a living for themselves off school grounds.

It sure sounds like while they love college sports, they sure hate the kids who play them.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The NCAA has a monopoly on sports at that age bracket. They've banded together to restrict those in that age from making money so that they can hoard it for themselves.

I think you've misidentified your target. Isn't your real beef with the NBA and NFL and their players' unions? It is the collective bargaining agreements in those sports which prevent individuals from playing in the leagues in the years immediately following high school.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think you've misidentified your target. Isn't your real beef with the NBA and NFL and their players' unions? It is the collective bargaining agreements in those sports which prevent individuals from playing in the leagues in the years immediately following high school.

Sort of a chicken and egg scenario. I don't agree with the rule they have, but it's in place because the NCAA doesn't allow players to be paid.

[dawgfan]

This is a joke, right? You enjoy a level playing field and love college sports. I don't care to debate the merits of parity in college sports, just find it funny when you are forced to argue for it in a level that is popular because it doesn't have any.

Quote me where I said college football has a level playing field. I didn't.

What I said was, I like that there have been attempts made to provide a more even playing field in the form of scholarship limits and rules against boosters paying players (among other things).

You look at college athletics like a professional sports league, and that's your problem - it's not. The appeal of following a team for most people has to do with having a connection to that school - either being an alumnus, or closely related to an alumnus.

People that attend (for example) Oregon State know they don't have the same advantages that a school like USC has. But thanks to scholarship limitations and rules against boosters paying players, a school like Oregon State has a much better opportunity to compete with and beat a school like USC with superior coaching, talent evaluation and motivation. Go to a system where players can be paid by boosters and their ability to compete against the USCs out there drops significantly.

Schools can make their own decisions on whether to pay or not. Athletes can then make their own decisions on what school is best for them. But lets concede the school paying part completely. Why can't Reggie Bush sign autographs for money when playing at USC? Why can't Tyrelle Pryor sell things that he fucking owns? Half your argument is that this is all great for college kids yet completely ignore that they are being denied the ability to make money outside of school. If you're a Chemist and a major pharmaceutical company came in and offered you a huge signing bonus for when you graduate, you'd be perfectly fine with that. But if it's an athlete, it's apparently wrong.

So what makes the difference in these students?

The kids that would stand to make a lot of money do make a lot of money once they're out of college. But if they really feel denied, nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you're a basketball player, go play in Europe or Asia. If you're a football player, join the Arena League or any of the other independent football leagues until you are eligible for the NFL.

Let's see how much money they'd make then. I think they'd find out that much of their value comes not from their own ability, but from the jersey they wear.

If you allow kids to start making money on things like autographs and memorabilia, etc., then that just opens a window for them to get paid, only in a roundabout way. Reggie Bush can sign autographs for money? That just mean you'd see groups of wealthy USC boosters buying them by the truckload to provide him a salary.

Do I agree with all of the measures to limit how and where these kids can work while in school? No. But I do get the intent, which is to try to keep them amateur athletes. There's nothing the NCAA can do about keeping boosters from contributing to facilities, and so that (in addition to tradition) will always be a big reason why the playing field isn't totally level, but keeping boosters from paying kids to play for their school keeps the playing field far more level than it would otherwise be.

How is allowing a kid to choose the best situation for him a bad thing? Do you really hate these kids that much? If riding the bench at Ohio State is a better move for his life, shouldn't you be happy for him? Isn't that the whole goal of college? It's becoming clear that their lives mean shit if it interferes in any way with you getting to watch players play where you want them to.

It's becoming quite clear you're a retard.

I must have missed the new rules passed whereby these athletes are forced to go to particular schools and don't have the freedom to choose where to attend. Kind of sounds like a "draft".

For the record, the school I'm a fan of is one of the few "haves" that turns a profit in athletics and could afford to pay players, so nice try attempting to turn this into some kind of idea that my argument is based on a team-centric bias.

This is such a hypocritical load of shit. You want to argue that this is to better the life of themselves and families while the rules do the exact opposite. Fuck, the NCAA just passed a rule that made it harder for kids to declare early for the NBA draft. That's like telling an MBA student he can't interview for jobs till he graduates.

First off, understand that I hate a lot of things the NCAA does, so quit being so fucktarded as to assume that just because I'm pointing out that paying players won't happen doesn't mean I agree with everything about the NCAA. Grow up.

Secondly, you continue, continue and continue to ignore the Title 9 issue. If you start allowing schools to pay players, then what you get is a small segment of current schools that can afford to do this and still comply with Title 9 requirements. So you get an ultra-elite segment of schools hoarding the best players, and you break the system - you'd get a group of maybe 15-20 schools that could compete at the highest level, and the rest are left with crumbs. Currently, at least all of the BCS conference schools have a shot at competing if they make smart decisions on who coaches their programs. In your system, they wouldn't. You'd basically create a professional league of 15-20 college teams, which would break the conferences and leave roughly 100 other schools looking at far less revenue from participating in football, meaning they'd have to cut a ton of other sports. Why do you hate women's cross country athletes? I mean, if you're going to throw around bullshit ad hominems, prepare to eat some back.

Thirdly, how exactly is providing a completely free education doing the opposite of bettering the life of these kids?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

LOL. You're really passionate about this.

It's fine if he wants to be ignorant about college athletics. What's grating is reading him spouting off his ignorance.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Title 9 has not been tested against a landscape of paid college athletes, only scholarships. It could be an interesting legal battle but its an open question. The language of title 9 itself is brief and vague, and there's plenty of people who have argued that title 9 has been unfairly used as universities as an excuse - Title 9 certainly doesn't require funding to be equal across genders, and it wouldn't necessarily require paying female athletes the same as men. (And it certainly doesn't require or restrict athletes from doing anything, especially on their own time with regards to agents and boosters)

Sure, there's no guarantee that if tested in court, Title 9 would require that an equal amount of money be spent paying female athletes as spent on male athletes. But given the precedent of scholarship equality, it seems quite likely that further compensation would also be subject to the same kind of equity rulings.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Sort of a chicken and egg scenario. I don't agree with the rule they have, but it's in place because the NCAA doesn't allow players to be paid.

Or could it be that at age 18 most of the kids are physically unable to compete in the NFL? That it's better for the NFL in the long run to allow these kids to continue to physically mature.

[bhlloy]

I kinda agree with most of Dawgfan is saying, but I don't see why a reasonable (and I have no idea what is reasonable but I was thinking in the low 10's of thousands) cap could be put on earnings. You want to hawk your jerseys or sell autographs or work at a booster's car dealership? Go right ahead - but it has to be all completely above board, audited and submitted to us by a deadline, and if you go above that or try to hide stuff in any way, you are done. If we find out the school knew about it and didn't tell us, they're done for a couple of years as well.

Don't think that would unlevel the playing field too much, it would lessen the attractiveness of taking money under the table and it would be a fairer way to further compensate these kids for the millions that are made in their name. And you put nuclear sanctions for programs that fail to monitor or try to sweep any violations under the table.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Don't think that would unlevel the playing field too much

... except for the incredible variance of opportunities from market to market, due to not only the popularity of the program but from the market size, proximity to larger markets, competition in those markets, and so on and so on.

For kicks, if I wanted to play along with the theory here, to reduce the playing field issue you'd have to establish a price list for every sport that put a single value on jerseys, autographs, etc etc etc & to work it would have to be set to a figure reasonably anticipated for those in the least marketable situations; i.e. the best player playing for Wyoming sets the price, not the guy playing near LA or Dallas or wherever.

[molson]

I don't think I've ever heard that ban on working, booster benefits, agent contact, etc, was about leveling the playing field. Usually the NCAA line has been about the purity of amateur athletics.

If parity is a big concern - why aren't we seeing it addressed in any other way? Why no caps on coaching salaries, for example, or booster donations? There's nothing to stop someone from sending a big check to the athletic department to make sure Jim Tressel travels on a private plane, but they can't buy a recruit lunch - or even give him a ride to practice. It seems like the former impacts parity a lot more than the latter. Or hey, maybe coaches and administrators should be paid just in graduate degree scholarships? That's a great value, and if they don't take advantage of it, it's their own fault.

Edit: The logical step someday is for the universities to license the school name and colors to private companies that run the football operations. The marriage of higher education and big-time college athletics in this country is beyond silly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If parity is a big concern - why aren't we seeing it addressed in any other way? Why no caps on coaching salaries, for example, or booster donations? There's nothing to stop someone from sending a big check to the athletic department to make sure Jim Tressel travels on a private plane, but they can't buy a recruit lunch - or even give him a ride to practice. It seems like the former impacts parity a lot more than the latter. Or hey, maybe coaches and administrators should be paid just in graduate degree scholarships? That's a great value, and if they don't take advantage of it, it's their own fault.

Because the parity argument is bullshit and they know it. They don't want parity, just want to use it as an excuse to keep the status quo. Like I said, no one gives a shit about parity in college sports until some kids are able to make some money on the side.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: The logical step someday is for the universities to license the school name and colors to private companies that run the football operations. The marriage of higher education and big-time college athletics in this country is beyond silly.

And that would be fine with me. Sure, it will ruin something I love, but it's the only way we will ever see these pointless debates end.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... except for the incredible variance of opportunities from market to market, due to not only the popularity of the program but from the market size, proximity to larger markets, competition in those markets, and so on and so on.

For kicks, if I wanted to play along with the theory here, to reduce the playing field issue you'd have to establish a price list for every sport that put a single value on jerseys, autographs, etc etc etc & to work it would have to be set to a figure reasonably anticipated for those in the least marketable situations; i.e. the best player playing for Wyoming sets the price, not the guy playing near LA or Dallas or wherever.

Are you suggesting there's no variance in any other factors in a kid choosing a school? Yeah this will be an additional one, but let's face it, it's already there, just under the table and not talked about. I'm guessing kids know which schools have boosters and special arrangements with local businesses and if they don't, they'll find out pretty quickly once their recruitment picks up.

In fact with a cap, you are probably evening the playing field. Sure there are schools who don't have boosters or aren't big enough to pay up to the cap, but I doubt those schools are in play for the top recruits anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Are you suggesting there's no variance in any other factors in a kid choosing a school?

I'm suggesting that this would quickly become the largest one.

[bhlloy]

System 1

School A is unwilling/unable to cheat
School B is able to cheat and pay a player unlimited amounts under the table in the knowledge that even if caught, they have deniability and probably will just get a small slap on the wrist

System 2

School A can arrange for player to be paid up to 20k (fictional figure) in additional benefits
School B can arrange for player to be paid up to 20k and will get absolutely nuked if they aren't monitoring it properly

We really think system 2 is the one that's going to unlevel the playing field?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You look at college athletics like a professional sports league, and that's your problem - it's not. The appeal of following a team for most people has to do with having a connection to that school - either being an alumnus, or closely related to an alumnus.

What does the appeal or your connection to the school have to do with these kids earning a living on the side? Does your support of your school depend on whether or not the starting WR is allowed to wait tables? You keep avoiding this question. Why does it bother you so much if these kids make a living on the side?

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The kids that would stand to make a lot of money do make a lot of money once they're out of college. But if they really feel denied, nobody is forcing them to go to college. If you're a basketball player, go play in Europe or Asia. If you're a football player, join the Arena League or any of the other independent football leagues until you are eligible for the NFL.

Does your stance here only extend to athletes? Or should all students abide by it? I mean a kid in law school will make a lot of money someday when he gets out, but you aren't demanding that he not work while he's in college. You aren't telling him he can't sell his own possessions. Why the hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If you allow kids to start making money on things like autographs and memorabilia, etc., then that just opens a window for them to get paid, only in a roundabout way. Reggie Bush can sign autographs for money? That just mean you'd see groups of wealthy USC boosters buying them by the truckload to provide him a salary.

Choose a side already. Are you for the best interest of the kids or for the best interests of your precious system? You spout all this bullshit about how this is great for the kids and their families. Then start this paragraph with "if you allow kids to start making money". Guess what? Allowing kids to earn a living is in their best interest.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Secondly, you continue, continue and continue to ignore the Title 9 issue.

I'm not. Title 9 would likely have to go through the court process to determine whether it extended to salary. But I'll concede the part about schools paying kids. I don't really care. I'm talking about allowing kids to earn a living for themselves. Allowing Reggie Bush to sign a deal with Nike and appear in commercials. Allowing a player to sell his own possessions or work a job on the side so he can maybe buy a couple nice things for himself.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Thirdly, how exactly is providing a completely free education doing the opposite of bettering the life of these kids?

It's not, it's great for kids. I have no problem with that at all. I'm saying that limiting them to that when they can earn a living in other areas is the opposite of bettering their lives. Telling Reggie Bush he can't sign a million dollar deal with Nike is the opposite of bettering his life. It's hampering it and not allowing him to maximize his worth.

Your answers are straight hypocrisy. On one hand you claim this is to better their lives while stating that it's bad if they are allowed to make money. Those go against one another. You claim that this is to keep a level playing field while college sports has rarely attempted to accomplish that.

You don't give a shit about these kids. You just care about your own personal stake in rooting for college sports. Keeping some amateur athlete fantasy alive in your head means something to you. It's not a big deal that you feel that way, just don't be a pussy and come out and admit it. Stop hiding behind the same bullshit that's been disproven time and time again.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You don't give a shit about these kids. You just care about your own personal stake in rooting for college sports. Keeping some amateur athlete fantasy alive in your head means something to you. It's not a big deal that you feel that way, just don't be a pussy and come out and admit it. Stop hiding behind the same bullshit that's been disproven time and time again.

A less cynical view might be that all he gives a shit about is the kids. Particularly the kids who you've never heard of who get to go to school because of athletic scholarships. The track runner, the women's volleyball player, etc. A legitimate concern is that if you make some of the changes you're suggesting, you essentially eliminate funding for these other non-revenue sports. Now, you have to navigate the Title IX waters, but what if you take the easy route and just eliminate other corresponding sports programs rather than continuing to spend additional dollars? Lots of kids lose, and not just the ones who can't sell their gold pants or be attractive to Nike in their own right.

With everything there's likely a middle ground, but I'm not sure we're going to find it here.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What does the appeal or your connection to the school have to do with these kids earning a living on the side? Does your support of your school depend on whether or not the starting WR is allowed to wait tables? You keep avoiding this question. Why does it bother you so much if these kids make a living on the side?

Again, quote me where I said they shouldn't make a living on the side. As I already mentioned, I don't like all of the NCAA regulations (I dislike many of them in fact). I don't get the restrictions on when and how much athletes can work while in school.

I do object to paying them for playing sports above and beyond what they are already being paid (which is a significant amount) because this is not professional sports - it's college athletics. Yes, it's not pure athletics like intramural sports. Yes, college football brings in a lot of revenue. But that revenue goes to provide opportunities for thousands of other kids in less glamorous sports to also get an athletic scholarship. While I think there are obviously a lot of problems with how the NCAA enforces amateurism and enforces their rules, but by and large college athletics work towards the benefit of the schools and the kids - the kids get a significant value with their free education, and the schools get increased donation levels from the warm and fuzzy bonds that are created with alumni via sports, as well as publicity to attract students and profs.

Does your stance here only extend to athletes? Or should all students abide by it? I mean a kid in law school will make a lot of money someday when he gets out, but you aren't demanding that he not work while he's in college. You aren't telling him he can't sell his own possessions. Why the hypocrisy?

Again, I've never once argued athletes shouldn't be able to work while in school.

The argument is about schools and/or boosters paying the athletes in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of value they already provide them in free education, etc. while in school.

Choose a side already. Are you for the best interest of the kids or for the best interests of your precious system? You spout all this bullshit about how this is great for the kids and their families. Then start this paragraph with "if you allow kids to start making money". Guess what? Allowing kids to earn a living is in their best interest.

Which kids' best interests? Apparently you're only looking out for the best interests of the top athletes in football and men's basketball, and fuck the rest. Because what you are proposing is going to lead to far, far fewer scholarships for all of those kids playing in money losing sports (which is the vast majority of NCAA sports).

Would it be better for Reggie Bush to make tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for his "autograph" while playing at USC in addition to everything the school provides for him? Sure. But it would be worse for the gymnasts, golfers, rowers, soccer players, volleyball players, swimmers, wrestlers, etc. at Oregon State, Washington State, Cal, Arizona & Arizona State that would find their sports dropped and no longer able to get athletic scholarships.

I'm not. Title 9 would likely have to go through the court process to determine whether it extended to salary. But I'll concede the part about schools paying kids. I don't really care. I'm talking about allowing kids to earn a living for themselves. Allowing Reggie Bush to sign a deal with Nike and appear in commercials. Allowing a player to sell his own possessions or work a job on the side so he can maybe buy a couple nice things for himself.

Well, that's a new tack on your argument. If you give a crap about trying to maintain a fairer playing field, then you'd be wary of what allowing those things would mean for parity in college football. If you don't care, if you want the circle of schools that can legitimately compete at the highest level to shrink greatly (wave goodbye to Boise State ever being in the top-5), then by all means - start down that path.

On the legal interpretation of Title 9, while I obviously don't know for sure that paying players directly would be viewed in the same light as how they are currently indirectly paid in the form of free tuition, etc., I don't really see why courts would see a distinction. They've already gone down the path of specifying equality in the form of scholarships.

It's not, it's great for kids. I have no problem with that at all. I'm saying that limiting them to that when they can earn a living in other areas is the opposite of bettering their lives. Telling Reggie Bush he can't sign a million dollar deal with Nike is the opposite of bettering his life. It's hampering it and not allowing him to maximize his worth.

Yes, for a select few like Reggie Bush, they are not getting the full worth of what they provide. But for most scholarship athletes, they're getting more value than they provide for their school. Do you favor catering to the select few like Bush over the majority of current scholarship athletes?

Your answers are straight hypocrisy. On one hand you claim this is to better their lives while stating that it's bad if they are allowed to make money. Those go against one another. You claim that this is to keep a level playing field while college sports has rarely attempted to accomplish that.

It's not hypocrisy, because I care about all the college athletes, not just the star players in the two big revenue sports.

And you're simply wrong about college sports rarely attempting to accomplish a level playing field.

You don't give a shit about these kids. You just care about your own personal stake in rooting for college sports. Keeping some amateur athlete fantasy alive in your head means something to you. It's not a big deal that you feel that way, just don't be a pussy and come out and admit it. Stop hiding behind the same bullshit that's been disproven time and time again.

Actually, I care a lot about these kids - far more than you do. You just want the superstars to get more money, and fuck the majority of the rest of the athletes that would get screwed over. So who is it that really doesn't give a shit about the "kids"? That would be you.

Quit being a pussy and admit that you just have a hard-on for the elite few at the expense of the many. It's not a big deal you feel that way, just own up to it.

See how easy these ad hominems are?

I guess asking you to really look at the situation instead of relying on lazy, cliche cynical arguments is too much to ask. So again, since you obviously hate college sports so much, just do the rest of us that understand them the courtesy of staying the fuck out of the big boy conversations about how things really work, and stick with pro sports.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by digamma

A less cynical view might be that all he gives a shit about is the kids. Particularly the kids who you've never heard of who get to go to school because of athletic scholarships. The track runner, the women's volleyball player, etc. A legitimate concern is that if you make some of the changes you're suggesting, you essentially eliminate funding for these other non-revenue sports. Now, you have to navigate the Title IX waters, but what if you take the easy route and just eliminate other corresponding sports programs rather than continuing to spend additional dollars? Lots of kids lose, and not just the ones who can't sell their gold pants or be attractive to Nike in their own right.

I really don't know why I bother replying to him - obviously many people here get what I'm saying, but he clearly doesn't.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does your stance here only extend to athletes? Or should all students abide by it? I mean a kid in law school will make a lot of money someday when he gets out, but you aren't demanding that he not work while he's in college. You aren't telling him he can't sell his own possessions. Why the hypocrisy?

One other thing. The difference here is of course the scholarship. If a law school student is getting a free ride and on top of that is asked to represent the school in some way, you can bet your bottom dollar there are stipulations on that grant in aid. They may not be the same restrictions, but restrictions most certainly exist.

[RainMaker]

Please explain to me how Reggie Bush signing a deal with Upper Deck to sign autographs effects "the few". Explain to me how Tim Tebow appearing in Nike commercials fucks over the gymnasts. Tell me how an athlete choosing to sign with an agent in college and accepting a signing bonus matters to the other sports programs or the school in general.

You have gone on and on about how I'm ignorant to college sports, yet have not once backed up your statements. You just spew the typical talking points that have no evidence behind it. So here is your chance, explain to me how these athletes making money on the side has any relevancy to other sports. Why should Reggie Bush not be allowed to take money from an agent? Why should Terrelle Pryor not be allowed to sell a possession of his? How do those actions somehow destroy college athletics for everyone else.

I can't wait to hear how you answer this.