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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

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.

I know of no academic scholarship that has the same off-campus restrictions that an athletic scholarship has. I had a few when I went to college and there was nothing in it about not being able to make money, interview for jobs, or sell my stuff. In fact, the school encouraged me to do those things. Oddly, they wanted me to do well for myself for some reason.

[digamma]

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. (Or finger tips.) Nowhere did I say they would be the same. In fact, I acknowledged they would be different. But, I would guess Google Fu could find any number of restrictions or conditions on getting or maintaining an academic, service, music or other scholarship at any number of institutions.

[RainMaker]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. It's a fair comparision. The difference to me would be that there is not a mandate on academic scholarships across the board. I also think that if there was one and those scholarships handcuffed students from seeking employment, interviewing for jobs, and so on, we would be very critical of them.

My point is that if we care about the kids, we should be encouraging and helping them be as succesful as possible. Whether that's helping a smart Chemist get a job before he graduates with a major pharmaceutical company or a football player from signing an endorsement deal with Nike. I would be against discouraging either of those things.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

First off, you're mixing your arguments. There's a difference between a school paying players and outside interests paying players - anything institutional is subject to Title 9 provisions. I trust you're clear by now on those implications?

Outside interests paying players has a less direct impact on non-revenue sports athletes. Here's how I see that potential impact: All of these seemingly innocent sounding ideas of ways to allow athletes to gain additional compensation could be easily exploited as a way for schools to explicitly buy talent. Oregon may or may not have paid a street runner to direct guys like Lache Seastrunk to their program (which is against the rules); open up the ability of athletes to sign endorsement deals while in college, and what's to stop Phil Knight from signing up all the hot-shot prospects he can with big fat Nike "endorsement" deals, or any other big-money boosters from doing similar arrangements for their own school programs?

So then you're in a position where boosters are explicitly able to buy players. Yes, this happens now under the table, but the restrictions against it limit how much it happens; remove the rules against it, and you'd see it proliferate in a huge way.

So what are the downsides? Less parity than currently exists for one. You can scoff all you want at the current landscape; I agree things aren't close to level now. But they could be far worse, and this idea would do so. And while the impact on athletic department budgets wouldn't be as direct as they would if institutions were paying players and having to abide by Title 9, you would still see much wider discrepancies between the haves and have nots. Most conferences have or are moving to full revenue sharing models, but if this change were to come into effect, and a certain fewer group of schools were able to buy up a greater percentage of the best players, it doesn't take a lot of vision to see that those have schools would push to eliminate revenue sharing and/or go it alone as independents. What do you think would happen to the athletic budget of a school like Duke or Vanderbilt or Washington State if they were to lose revenue sharing, or worse yet, see their conferences collapse entirely with the few big name schools bolting? And what happens when their football revenue falls? The non-revenue sports get cut.

You have gone on and on about how I'm ignorant to college sports, yet have not once backed up your statements.

You need me to point you to links about Title 9?
You need me to point you to links about the very small number of athletic departments that turn a profit?
You need me to point you to links describing the specific value of athletic scholarships at various schools?

Which parts are you saying I'm not backing up?

Of course I can't prove what would happen if you allowed schools, or boosters, or agents, or whatever to pay athletes. Nobody can, so that's an impossible standard to ask for.

You just spew the typical talking points that have no evidence behind it.

You spew the typical talking points of someone that has no clue about college athletic finances.

See how easy that is?

A little hint - it's as much the way you frame your arguments as your arguments themselves that rile people up. Try a little humility once in a while.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

First off, you're mixing your arguments. There's a difference between a school paying players and outside interests paying players - anything institutional is subject to Title 9 provisions. I trust you're clear by now on those implications?

I think my last 3 posts have said I'll concede schools paying athletes since I have no idea how the courts would perceive that in regards to Title IX. Almost all my arguments have centered around kids getting jobs outside of school. I'll try to be clearer. I am not arguing about schools paying any kids any money anymore.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So what are the downsides? Less parity than currently exists for one. You can scoff all you want at the current landscape; I agree things aren't close to level now. But they could be far worse, and this idea would do so. And while the impact on athletic department budgets wouldn't be as direct as they would if institutions were paying players and having to abide by Title 9, you would still see much wider discrepancies between the haves and have nots. Most conferences have or are moving to full revenue sharing models, but if this change were to come into effect, and a certain fewer group of schools were able to buy up a greater percentage of the best players, it doesn't take a lot of vision to see that those have schools would push to eliminate revenue sharing and/or go it alone as independents. What do you think would happen to the athletic budget of a school like Duke or Vanderbilt or Washington State if they were to lose revenue sharing, or worse yet, see their conferences collapse entirely with the few big name schools bolting? And what happens when their football revenue falls? The non-revenue sports get cut.

Wow. This is quite a stretch. Your argument is now that allowing certain kids to make a living for themselves will somehow destroy the fabric of all college athletics. Ignoring the fact that somehow they managed to have college sports without huge conference TV contracts, expensive tickets, and sponsorships. That hundreds of schools in lower divisions and lower overall budgets are capable of pulling this off. This is either a really crafty way of trying to dodge the fact that you don't want to admit that you just enjoy college sports the way it is at the expense of these kids or one of the most stupidest things I've ever read.

Listen up kids, you can't get jobs or earn money. It'll set off a chain of events that will destroy college athletics.

You're right, I don't understand the finances of college athletics on whatever planet you are living on.

[MrBug708]

Im not going to read through all of this but I'm assuming that the NCAA did not release their appeal findings?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think my last 3 posts have said I'll concede schools paying athletes since I have no idea how the courts would perceive that in regards to Title IX. Almost all my arguments have centered around kids getting jobs outside of school. I'll try to be clearer. I am not arguing about schools paying any kids any money anymore.



Wow. This is quite a stretch. Your argument is now that allowing certain kids to make a living for themselves will somehow destroy the fabric of all college athletics. Ignoring the fact that somehow they managed to have college sports without huge conference TV contracts, expensive tickets, and sponsorships. That hundreds of schools in lower divisions and lower overall budgets are capable of pulling this off. This is either a really crafty way of trying to dodge the fact that you don't want to admit that you just enjoy college sports the way it is at the expense of these kids or one of the most stupidest things I've ever read.

Listen up kids, you can't get jobs or earn money. It'll set off a chain of events that will destroy college athletics.

You're right, I don't understand the finances of college athletics on whatever planet you are living on.

Pop quiz - those lower divisions, how many scholarships do they award?

I'll give you a little hint - waaaaaaaaay fewer than at the FBS level. And, surprise surprise, far fewer scholarships then in the other, non-revenue sports.

You're right - you still don't understand college athletic finances. Thanks for the continued douchebag comments though, not that I'd expect anything different from you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Pop quiz - those lower divisions, how many scholarships do they award?

I'll give you a little hint - waaaaaaaaay fewer than at the FBS level. And, surprise surprise, far fewer scholarships then in the other, non-revenue sports.

You're right - you still don't understand college athletic finances. Thanks for the continued douchebag comments though, not that I'd expect anything different from you.

They have signifigantly lower athletic budgets. That's why they don't offer as many scholarships. Most Division 2 schools barely spend over $1 million on their athletic program. There are Division 1 programs that spend over $100 million. This still has absolutely nothing to do with kids being able to work outside of school.

I know how college finances work. It's why I'm not making really stupid arguments that allowing kids to have jobs on the side would somehow collapse the entire system on to itself.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They have signifigantly lower athletic budgets. That's why they don't offer as many scholarships. Most Division 2 schools barely spend over $1 million on their athletic program. There are Division 1 programs that spend over $100 million. This still has absolutely nothing to do with kids being able to work outside of school.

Correct - they have far fewer scholarships to offer, which was my point.

I suggested that allowing football players to be paid by outside interests would to a breakdown of the current system, leaving far fewer schools able to compete at what is currently the top level of college football, which would effectively leave most schools taking in far less revenue and thus having to cut more sports to make ends meet while complying with Title 9. You then tried to rebut that argument by talking about lower division schools, but you actually proved my point.

I know how college finances work. It's why I'm not making really stupid arguments that allowing kids to have jobs on the side would somehow collapse the entire system on to itself.

You continue to prove that do not understand how college athletics finances work.

And as an aside, you have yet to address the fact that athletes are not forced into going the college route - there's nothing stopping them from doing what Brandon Jennings did in basketball, or playing in the CFL or Arena Leagues in football. If an athlete really feels like they're getting ripped off going the college route, nobody is forcing them to do so. And yet 99.99% of them in football and basketball do choose that route...

I'm done "arguing" with you.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Im not going to read through all of this but I'm assuming that the NCAA did not release their appeal findings?

Not yet. But Dan Weber, who is a good reporter on USC's site, says it will happen this week and that signs are pointing towards good news for USC (although not necessarily as good as Dion tweeted.)

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by 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.

The people you are arguing with agree that this is fine. What the argument is over is the SCHOOL paying the player, not boosters or endorsers or anyone else. None of what you described above involves the SCHOOL paying the player.

[BillJasper]

To me, allowing outside interest to pay players introduces a degree of risk that the university shouldn't be exposed to.

What if an agent gives a high profile player a signing bonus. He's now got a vested interest in that player not getting hurt and will probably lean on the player to "save it for the next level".

If we allow these players to work for outside companies, who is going to monitor if there actually working or are just taking a bribe to attend a certain school?

If we allow them to sell trinkets won during their careers, who is going to monitor the price the items are selling for?

Seems to me that a college education and room and board for four years should be more than enough compensation for these kids. If it's not then they need to go ahead and get a job in the real world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Seems to me that a college education and room and board for four years should be more than enough compensation for these kids. If it's not then they need to go ahead and get a job in the real world.

I'm ambivalent about most of this stuff but this one sentiment has always been my pet peeve. This is old-timey thinking that just sounds exploitative of a certain group (no matter what the group is). Why don't we say $85k is PLENTY for a college coach and get all worked up if they want to make any more than that? They can always just get a real job if they don't like it, after all. Or as I said before, why shouldn't coaches and administrative staff just get room and board and free graduate level courses? In fact, why shouldn't the coaches be graduate students, they're just as involved in the success of a team as the players. We'd have a nice level playing field.

Room and board is nice, but an academic scholarship is not for everyone. This ties into some education debates we've had on this board about how in America, there's this culture that everyone has to go to college and take liberal arts courses. But that's just silly, a University of Michigan education is not for everyone. Many people just aren't going to benefit from that, and if we're being honest, many people simply can't cut it at a school like that, and would never have been accepted in the first place if they weren't a football player. It'd be like a lot of us doing office work and getting paid via a scholarship to a football academy. That football academy might be elite - but I have no business being there and I'm really not going to benefit from it.

This all got goofy when universities started bending the rules to allow kids who would never otherwise qualify for school get in because they could throw a ball. At that point - they're no longer real student-athletes, they're hired professionals. Paying them in sociology classes is just odd. Not necessarily wrong, just really strange if you think about it.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm ambivalent about most of this stuff but this one sentiment has always been my pet peeve. This is old-timey thinking that just sounds exploitative of a certain group (no matter what the group is). Why don't we say $85k is PLENTY for a college coach and get all worked up if they want to make any more than that? They can always just get a real job if they don't like it, after all. Or as I said before, why shouldn't coaches and administrative staff just get room and board and free graduate level courses? We'd have a nice level playing field.

Room and board is nice, but an academic scholarship is not for everyone. This ties into some education debates we've had on this board about how in America, there's this culture that everyone has to go to college and take liberal arts courses. But that's just silly, a University of Michigan education is not for everyone. Many people just aren't going to benefit from that, and if we're being honest, many people simply can't cut it at a school like that, and would never have been accepted in the first place if they weren't a football player. It'd be like a lot of us doing office work and getting paid via a scholarship to a football academy. That football academy might be elite - but I have no business being there and I'm really not going to benefit from it.

This all got goofy when universities started bending the rules to allow kids who would never otherwise qualify for school get in because they could throw a ball. At that point - they're no longer real student-athletes, they're hired professionals. Paying them in sociology classes is just odd. Not necessarily wrong, just really strange if you think about it.

The universities opened themselves up to the situation by allowing athletes to participate that have no business being enrolled at the school. But they're probably in a situation where they'd open themselves up to civil rights lawsuits if they tried to raise the bar back up and exclude these kids.

I think one thing that gets overlooked in these compensation talks is that not only is the student-athlete getting an education and living arrangements. They're also getting a (in a lot of cases a national) platform to display their wares that wouldn't otherwise be there.

What kind of dollar value do you place on that?

Is Cam Newton the number one pick in the NFL after two great seasons at Blinn College?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The universities opened themselves up to the situation by allowing athletes to participate that have no business being enrolled at the school. But they're probably in a situation where they'd open themselves up to civil rights lawsuits if they tried to raise the bar back up and exclude these kids.

I think one thing that gets overlooked in these compensation talks is that not only is the student-athlete getting an education and living arrangements. They're also getting a (in a lot of cases a national) platform to display their wares that wouldn't otherwise be there.

What kind of dollar value do you place on that?

winner

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I think one thing that gets overlooked in these compensation talks is that not only is the student-athlete getting an education and living arrangements. They're also getting a (in a lot of cases a national) platform to display their wares that wouldn't otherwise be there.

What kind of dollar value do you place on that?

That's a huge value, no doubt, not to mention just the experience of being on a big-time college football team. To me though, I don't think the question is deciding collectively for every college athlete in the country, how much they should "get" because they can throw a ball. We don't do that with many other professions. (And you might say it's not a profession, but that's how we're analyzing it - what you do for the school and what you get in return). Why don't we do that for coaches or anyone else - decide at a top, centralized level what they're worth and mandate that for everyone?

Edit: It's not that they don't get enough, that's not my point at all. Maybe they should get less. Maybe they should get more room and board and less Shakespeare and psychology. Every kid and certainly every school is different. For some kids, a Michigan education that they couldn't otherwise afford, but are intellectually qualified for, could be priceless. For another kid, that's worthless (but the Michigan FOOTBALL experience is still valuable).

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a huge value, no doubt, not to mention just the experience of being on a big-time college football team. To me though, I don't think the question is deciding collectively for every college athlete in the country, how much they should "get" because they can throw a ball. We don't do that with many other professions. (And you might say it's not a profession, but that's how we're analyzing it - what you do for the school and what you get in return). Why don't we do that for coaches or anyone else - decide at a top level what they're worth and mandate that for everyone?

I actually agree that it should be done for coaches as well.

But my issues with how the NCAA handles coaches in general is a whole different rant.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The universities opened themselves up to the situation by allowing athletes to participate that have no business being enrolled at the school. But they're probably in a situation where they'd open themselves up to civil rights lawsuits if they tried to raise the bar back up and exclude these kids.

I think one thing that gets overlooked in these compensation talks is that not only is the student-athlete getting an education and living arrangements. They're also getting a (in a lot of cases a national) platform to display their wares that wouldn't otherwise be there.

What kind of dollar value do you place on that?

Is Cam Newton the number one pick in the NFL after two great seasons at Blinn College?

I'm sorry, this is absurd. So because 1% of football players make some money after college, it's perfectly OK to put the lot of them under draconian restrictions that mean they can't get a job or make any money off their skills that we don't put on any other student in the country?

By this logic I'm assuming you'd be perfectly OK with a completely unpaid internship for 4 years with a tiny chance that you'd actually get a job at the end of it?

And WTF does civil rights have anything to do with this?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm sorry, this is absurd. So because 1% of football players make some money after college, it's perfectly OK to put the lot of them under draconian restrictions that mean they can't get a job or make any money off their skills that we don't put on any other student in the country?

By this logic I'm assuming you'd be perfectly OK with a completely unpaid internship for 4 years with a tiny chance that you'd actually get a job at the end of it?

Are you saying these kids aren't smart enough to make educated decisions when signing up for college athletics? You have to figure that probably 85-90% of these kids are playing football/basketball for the exposure it'll grant them to those people making decisions at the next level. It's an advantage they otherwise wouldn't receive and they receive it whether they make the next level or not. The university is offering them a free education in addition to that exposure. Up to the athlete whether they take advantage or not.

And WTF does civil rights have anything to do with this?

Someone upthread pointed out that alot of these kids wouldn't qualify to attend these schools unless they lowered the standards. I was merely commenting on that.

[Logan]

Honest question: let's say everything got worked out that would allow for ALL college players to be paid $10,000 a semester. The legal questions are answered, we're ignoring that probably 10 schools in the country can afford it, etc.

Does Cam Newton...sorry...does Cam Newton's dad, without his son's knowledge, no longer seek $200k to send his son to a school? Do all the situations where runners are handing kids a $100 bill, or stacks of hundreds, whatever, just go away?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Logan

Honest question: let's say everything got worked out that would allow for ALL college players to be paid $10,000 a semester. The legal questions are answered, we're ignoring that probably 10 schools in the country can afford it, etc.

Does Cam Newton...sorry...does Cam Newton's dad, without his son's knowledge, no longer seek $200k to send his son to a school? Do all the situations where runners are handing kids a $100 bill, or stacks of hundreds, whatever, just go away?

I think it simply ups the ante.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Logan

Honest question: let's say everything got worked out that would allow for ALL college players to be paid $10,000 a semester. The legal questions are answered, we're ignoring that probably 10 schools in the country can afford it, etc.

Does Cam Newton...sorry...does Cam Newton's dad, without his son's knowledge, no longer seek $200k to send his son to a school? Do all the situations where runners are handing kids a $100 bill, or stacks of hundreds, whatever, just go away?

I don't think anyone is actually arguing that schools should pay players, but that they should be at least allowed to have a job and make money off the fact that they are sports stars and making millions of dollars for the NCAA, just like anybody else would. I think that there should definitely be upper limits, and I'd be in favor of much much stronger enforcement and monitoring to go along with it.

In that situation, where Cam Newton can earn up to 20,40,60k by playing, and if he's in a situation where if he (or his deadbeat father) is caught doing anything improper he knows that he's done for at the college level for good, and he's probably never going to sniff the NFL, then yeah I think it makes a big difference.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

In that situation, where Cam Newton can earn up to 20,40,60k by playing, and if he's in a situation where if he (or his deadbeat father) is caught doing anything improper he knows that he's done for at the college level for good, and he's probably never going to sniff the NFL, then yeah I think it makes a big difference.

Guy got caught selling stolen laptops and his Dad apparently sold his services to the highest bidder (without his knowledge ). Didn't seem to scare the NFL off any.

Then the 'unpaid' linemen are going to allow the pass rush through to crush ol' Mr. Newton to prove they're every bit as important and should be paid to.

It's still a team sport and people like Newton or Reggie Bush are only as successful as the parts around them allow them to be.

The NCAA doesn't seem able to keep things under control now. How would they be able to keep them under control in this brave new world? Are they going to dedicate staff to go through each students tax returns, time sheets and bank statements to make sure they're playing by the rules?

[molson]

I think it helps too to distinguish the types of "students" running around at the universities.

1. Regular students who are accepted to school legitimately and pay through some combination of cash, loans, and merit or need scholarships.

2. Elite students who bring something extra to the university - football skill, academic excellence, musical talent....they are accepted to school legitimately but get free tuition, and often free room and board.

Everything makes sense so far. But then. ..

3. Kids that can't get accepted to college - they're just not intellectually developed enough, they have some personal baggage, or they're just too dumb. But, they get to enroll anyway because they can play a sport. For some reason, we insist on this preposterous charade that they're actually real students. We give them books, a suggested class schedule, and they walk around and pretend to learn. Like that UConn basketball player, we might even given them a special tutor for "independent study", who may, through a lot of work and patience, actually someday convince the kid to read an entire book for the first time in his life.

The existence of #3 means this is a professional setup. I think you lose any arguments about amateurism once you let that kid in. This is now something different than "collegiate athletics". NCAA rules shouldn't even apply to that kid. Maybe that tier of kids should be placed in the same tier as the coaches - salaried non-students hired by the university. Or maybe, if your school is elite enough, you don't need to pay them - they're willing to work for free for the exposure, that's cool too. But they're not students. They are hired professionals. And they get a lot for it, no doubt.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it helps too to distinguish the types of "students" running around at the universities.

1. Regular students who are accepted to school legitimately and pay through some combination of cash, loans, and merit or need scholarships.

2. Elite students who bring something extra to the university - football skill, academic excellence, musical talent....they are accepted to school legitimately but get free tuition, and often free room and board.

Everything makes sense so far. But then. ..

3. Kids that can't get accepted to college - they're just not intellectually developed enough, they have some personal baggage, or they're just too dumb. But, they get to enroll anyway because they can play a sport. For some reason, we insist on this preposterous charade that they're actually real students. We give them books, a suggested class schedule, and they walk around and pretend to learn. Like that UConn basketball player, we might even given them a special tutor for "independent study", who may, through a lot of work and patience, actually someday convince the kid to read an entire book for the first time in his life.

The existence of #3 means this is a professional setup. I think you lose any arguments about amateurism once you let that kid in. This is now something different than "collegiate athletics". NCAA rules shouldn't even apply to that kid. Maybe that tier of kids should be placed in the same tier as the coaches - salaried non-students hired by the university.

Maybe that tier #3 student shouldn't even be accepted into the university in the first place - I guess that would fall under your idea of "salaried non-student?"

But then why are schools bothering to pay them to play athletics? Let the student-athletes be people in category #1. Maybe they shouldn't even be hired as salaried non-students and should just go to trade school/junior college/get a job.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

3. Kids that can't get accepted to college - they're just not intellectually developed enough, they have some personal baggage, or they're just too dumb. But, they get to enroll anyway because they can play a sport. For some reason, we insist on this preposterous charade that they're actually real students. We give them books, a suggested class schedule, and they walk around and pretend to learn. Like that UConn basketball player, we might even given them a special tutor for "independent study", who may, through a lot of work and patience, actually someday convince the kid to read an entire book for the first time in his life.

The existence of #3 means this is a professional setup. I think you lose any arguments about amateurism once you let that kid in. This is now something different than "collegiate athletics". NCAA rules shouldn't even apply to that kid. Maybe that tier of kids should be placed in the same tier as the coaches - salaried non-students hired by the university. Or maybe, if your school is elite enough, you don't need to pay them - they're willing to work for free for the exposure, that's cool too. But they're not students. They are hired professionals. And they get a lot for it, no doubt.

Which is just bullshit. If the kid can't qualify for school based on his academic record and doesn't want to work at being a student then perhaps he should be sent to work at Wal-Mart and play semi-pro football.

There are 1600 NFL players in a population of 300 million people. These kids are given a gift of free education because they can play a sport. For those that don't make the NFL and didn't take advantage of getting an education, what exactly did that four years gain them? Even if you pay them, the vast majority are going to be washed out twenty-two year olds with absolutely no future.

The whole college setup really just pisses me off.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Which is just bullshit. If the kid can't qualify for school based on his academic record and doesn't want to work at being a student then perhaps he should be sent to work at Wal-Mart and play semi-pro football.

There are 1600 NFL players in a population of 300 million people. These kids are given a gift of free education because they can play a sport. For those that don't make the NFL and didn't take advantage of getting an education, what exactly did that four years gain them? Even if you pay them, the vast majority are going to be washed out twenty-two year olds with absolutely no future.

The whole college setup really just pisses me off.

Probably put it better than I could in my post just up above. Nice to see a like-minded individual.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The people you are arguing with agree that this is fine. What the argument is over is the SCHOOL paying the player, not boosters or endorsers or anyone else. None of what you described above involves the SCHOOL paying the player.

dawgfan is the one arguing that allowing kids to earn a living outside of school has the impact to destroy college sports as a whole.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - NCAA Infractions Committee Report on USC - Lane Kiffin learns about irony

[digamma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The people you are arguing with agree that this is fine. What the argument is over is the SCHOOL paying the player, not boosters or endorsers or anyone else. None of what you described above involves the SCHOOL paying the player.

Not sure I agree with this. I think there would be just as big of a problem with a corporation or other entity paying the individual for nothing more than being a football player. Think Big Red Sports and Imports in Norman, OK. I don't think Rhett Bomar ever stepped foot on that car lot other than to pick up his "pay check."

Similarly, I don't think its far fetched for Phil Knight to set up an "internship" for the Oregon basketball team paying top dollar, with one of the requirements of the job being to participate in the Oregon Corporate Summer Basketball League.

Some of the info in this thread is just wrong. Kids can have jobs. There are severe income limits. I think it is worth considering whether those should be raised. There are also a lot of legitimate internship programs that do train kids who probably would be considered in molson's #3 category on their college application in addition to providing opportunities for the non-revenue athlete who has a 4.0 GPA. It's not like student athletes are being locked up for four years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Not sure I agree with this. I think there would be just as big of a problem with a corporation or other entity paying the individual for nothing more than being a football player. Think Big Red Sports and Imports in Norman, OK. I don't think Rhett Bomar ever stepped foot on that car lot other than to pick up his "pay check."

Similarly, I don't think its far fetched for Phil Knight to set up an "internship" for the Oregon basketball team paying top dollar, with one of the requirements of the job being to participate in the Oregon Corporate Summer Basketball League.

I'll pose to you the same question. Why does this matter? If some rich guy is willing to overpay a kid for his time, then what does it matter to you? I mean this is about the kids, right? So why are some of you so opposed to a setup like this where a 3rd party individual is paying a student-athlete money so that he can live comfortably?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'll pose to you the same question. Why does this matter? If some rich guy is willing to overpay a kid for his time, then what does it matter to you? I mean this is about the kids, right? So why are some of you so opposed to a setup like this where a 3rd party individual is paying a student-athlete money so that he can live comfortably?

Unequal playing field in what's supposed to be something determined solely on talent (sports).

Messing with the (now largely dubunked and hypothetical anyway) integrity of the game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Unequal playing field in what's supposed to be something determined solely on talent (sports).

Messing with the (now largely dubunked and hypothetical anyway) integrity of the game.

So it's not about the kids, it's about fan's personal enjoyment.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'll pose to you the same question. Why does this matter? If some rich guy is willing to overpay a kid for his time, then what does it matter to you? I mean this is about the kids, right? So why are some of you so opposed to a setup like this where a 3rd party individual is paying a student-athlete money so that he can live comfortably?

Is it about preparing kids for life after college or just enabling them to live "comfortably" (whatever that means) while in college?

I'm not sure the hand out from the booster even if disguised as an internship does the former. I can admit there is some basic attraction to a simple argument of letting a kid get what they can, but I'm not sure it serves anyone's best interests in the long run, including (maybe most of all) the kid who takes $200,000 and blows off school because he thinks he'll always be on top of the world.

I do think such a system would also have negative effects on college basketball and football in terms of reducing competitiveness. Assuming you get through legal issues that may be present, I'll grant you that argument is less about the kids. But I don't think that's as disingenuous as you seem to make it out. My contributions are going to support the student-athlete's education. Do I have some input as a consumer?

There are a couple of reasonable alternatives. One I mentioned is increasing the wage allowance above the current $2,000. That seems too low to me. Another is working with the NBA and NFL and their players unions to craft better plans. I think college baseball does it pretty well actually. You can be drafted out of high school, but if you choose to go to college, you are there for at least three years.

Finally, one thing I think everyone would agree on is that we aren't doing enough on the life preparation front. With the stats on NFL players who go broke within three years of leaving the league, this isn't just a college problem. Some schools are better at this than others, but all could improve. Access to programs a student wouldn't normally have access to is probably the best value in getting an athletic scholarship. Of course the student needs to take advantage of it, but colleges can do a better job leading the proverbial horse to water.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So it's not about the kids, it's about fan's personal enjoyment.

It has to be one or the other? The current arrangement is a fairly good compromise. Despite your claims that the players are being taken advantage of they are pretty richly rewarded now. How many kids turn down a D1 football scholarship? That's a good indication of the value; and except for the ones who sign a baseball contract I can’t think of any who walk away from it.

It's true that absurd amounts of money are being generated by these athletes, football players specifically. But are there any students on campus who benefit more from that than the athletes themselves? All of that money is put right back into the stadiums, practice facilities, special study halls, tutors and everything else that the players use on a daily basis. And that doesn't even touch on the intangible rewards; being on a major university campus with the social status of a football player is a pretty large reward to an 18-22 year old male.

So no, I don't feel guilty about opposing payments to the players.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

It has to be one or the other? The current arrangement is a fairly good compromise. Despite your claims that the players are being taken advantage of they are pretty richly rewarded now. How many kids turn down a D1 football scholarship? That's a good indication of the value; and except for the ones who sign a baseball contract I can***8217;t think of any who walk away from it.

It's true that absurd amounts of money are being generated by these athletes, football players specifically. But are there any students on campus who benefit more from that than the athletes themselves? All of that money is put right back into the stadiums, practice facilities, special study halls, tutors and everything else that the players use on a daily basis. And that doesn't even touch on the intangible rewards; being on a major university campus with the social status of a football player is a pretty large reward to an 18-22 year old male.

So no, I don't feel guilty about opposing payments to the players.

Nice points - none of us had considered the inherent poontang-reward yet.

What's the going rate for 4 years of all-you-can-fuck? Gotta be quite high.

[RainMaker]

Them earning money doesn't have to prepare them for life. It is just something that enhances their current situation. I think you're really stretching if you're arguing that college students having some extra pocket change is a bad thing. And those that are capable of earning 6-figures in some form in college are likely not the ones who are there for the degree anyways.

I don't understand the competitiveness argument. Kentucky closed the book on their 3rd straight #1 recruiting class in basketball. College football typically has the same teams bringing in the top recruits every single year. How much is this really going to change? I would argue that it would have the opposite effect.

You do have a right as a consumer to want what you want. I have never argued that. And I appreciate you being honest about that aspect. I found it disingenuous of others to argue this was strictly for the benefit of the student-athletes when it clearly isn't. I would argue that I think this would be good for the overall product. If players were able to get by more comfortably, you'd likely see more athletes stay in school. For a basketball player from a poor urban area, a signing bonus from his agent and a shoe contract could tide him over for a couple years while he develops his game in college. You definitely wouldn't see as many underclassmen make the jump to the pros.

The alternatives would be a nice start. $2,000 is ridiculously low, especially considering how many athletes come from underprivelaged background. I can understand not wanting the schools to be a part of it, and would even support them blocking agent deals, etc from being done on campus. But if John Wall wants to grab a signing bonus from Nike for a few million dollars while he's in college, I think that's great for him and we should be happy that someone is being succesful.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

It has to be one or the other? The current arrangement is a fairly good compromise. Despite your claims that the players are being taken advantage of they are pretty richly rewarded now. How many kids turn down a D1 football scholarship? That's a good indication of the value; and except for the ones who sign a baseball contract I can***8217;t think of any who walk away from it.

It's true that absurd amounts of money are being generated by these athletes, football players specifically. But are there any students on campus who benefit more from that than the athletes themselves? All of that money is put right back into the stadiums, practice facilities, special study halls, tutors and everything else that the players use on a daily basis. And that doesn't even touch on the intangible rewards; being on a major university campus with the social status of a football player is a pretty large reward to an 18-22 year old male.

So no, I don't feel guilty about opposing payments to the players.

The question still remains, why are you opposed to it? Why are you against kids earning a living on the side? How does this negatively effect you? You can argue about how this is all fair, but the fact remains that there are people who would pay these kids money to endorse products or agree to use them as their future agent. So it's tough to argue that they are getting a good deal when you have to create rules that don't allow them to get better ones.

[DaddyTorgo]

This point is going to seem like it's arguing against itself. I acknowledge that.

I agree that the $2,000 cap is ridiculous. That won't buy you much of anything - especially food-wise if you're an athlete eating as much as athletes eat. That needs to go up, regardless of what I'm about to say next.

Citing the $2,000 number as what athletes are being paid or have the opportunity to earn is disingenuous however. They've been given an item with a value of anywhere between $140,000-$200,000. That's their scholarship...room & board, etc. Their "total compensation" (in business-world parlance). And they in a sense "earn" that by working on the court and in practice for their scholarship.

I just feel like that's their total compensation - their job is to earn that compensation through athletic performance and effort, not be off trying to raise additional money on the side. Because that $200,000 is a damn sweet paycheck - even for 4 years of work at that age. You couldn't make anywhere close to that in the "real world" at that age.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The question still remains, why are you opposed to it? Why are you against kids earning a living on the side? How does this negatively effect you? You can argue about how this is all fair, but the fact remains that there are people who would pay these kids money to endorse products or agree to use them as their future agent. So it's tough to argue that they are getting a good deal when you have to create rules that don't allow them to get better ones.

I'm opposed to it because I think it would lead to a handful of teams collecting all of the best talent.

You wouldn't have to work very hard to convince me that the stipend they receive should be increased; $2,000 doesn't seem like enough. But you are talking about wholesale changes to the current system. Usually when an organization is contemplating systemic changes like that there has to be a pretty damn good reason to change. I just don't see that in this case, there is nothing threatening college football that makes any of the changes you are advocating worthwhile.

[molson]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

It has to be one or the other? The current arrangement is a fairly good compromise. Despite your claims that the players are being taken advantage of they are pretty richly rewarded now. How many kids turn down a D1 football scholarship? That's a good indication of the value; and except for the ones who sign a baseball contract I can***8217;t think of any who walk away from it.

It's true that absurd amounts of money are being generated by these athletes, football players specifically. But are there any students on campus who benefit more from that than the athletes themselves? All of that money is put right back into the stadiums, practice facilities, special study halls, tutors and everything else that the players use on a daily basis. And that doesn't even touch on the intangible rewards; being on a major university campus with the social status of a football player is a pretty large reward to an 18-22 year old male.

So no, I don't feel guilty about opposing payments to the players.

"They make enough". There's any number of professions in the U.S. you could say that about (starting with college football coaches). That one alone just doesn't hold any water.

One thing I've heard pitched before is let kids get their endorsements, their jobs, but require that they put most of it in a trust until they fulfill the requirements of their agreement with the school - whether that be don't rape anyone, or graduate.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

3. Kids that can't get accepted to college - they're just not intellectually developed enough, they have some personal baggage, or they're just too dumb. But, they get to enroll anyway because they can play a sport. For some reason, we insist on this preposterous charade that they're actually real students. We give them books, a suggested class schedule, and they walk around and pretend to learn. Like that UConn basketball player, we might even given them a special tutor for "independent study", who may, through a lot of work and patience, actually someday convince the kid to read an entire book for the first time in his life.

The existence of #3 means this is a professional setup. I think you lose any arguments about amateurism once you let that kid in. This is now something different than "collegiate athletics". NCAA rules shouldn't even apply to that kid. Maybe that tier of kids should be placed in the same tier as the coaches - salaried non-students hired by the university. Or maybe, if your school is elite enough, you don't need to pay them - they're willing to work for free for the exposure, that's cool too. But they're not students. They are hired professionals. And they get a lot for it, no doubt.

The problem with this take is it assumes that every kid that enters school at or very near the bare minimum academic requirements is going to fail. I'd love to see a study that looks at this, because I'm betting these "academic risk" kids succeed a lot more than you are implying - I've seen far too many stories of these success stories, as well as overall numbers showing football players graduating at levels similar too (or even better than) the rest of the student body to think that most of these kids fail.

Call me a bleeding-heart, but I find it incredibly rewarding to read about these kids that come in to school barely qualified and still in a mentality of being all about football (or basketball), and finding themselves transformed after 4-5 years of school and graduating with honors, doing outstanding social outreach work, dedicating themselves to the educational process and helping others, etc.

Obviously some of these kids never do appreciate the opportunity they are given. Some of them just never develop the discipline or the mentality to take advantage of the educational opportunity presented to them. But many do, and many of them that come into school as fringe students are coming from really difficult backgrounds, and them taking advantage of their opportunities in school has a profound impact on their lives and the lives of their families.

I know it's easy to be cynical about college sports - I get it. I see the same headlines and negative stories. But I also read the positive stories, and I think those don't get enough attention.

The NCAA does a lot of things wrong. But while I can see why some look at big-time college athletics as a perversion of the academic missions of Universities, I think at their core they are doing good and provide, on the whole, a net benefit.

And so everyone is clear where I stand:

- I simply don't think there's any way that the institutions themselves can pay players above and beyond what they already get in the form of their scholarships and all the free perks that come with it due to the likelihood that Title 9 requirements would force schools to provide equal compensation to women athletes - there's only a handful of schools currently operating a profit with their athletic departments;

- I think that allowing outside influences to pay players comes with a number of troubling side effects, including a further stratification of the haves and have-nots which would result in most of the current 120 or so FBS schools becoming the new Division 1-AA level with greatly reduced revenues, which (as we've discussed regarding Title 9) would lead to fewer overall athletes on scholarship; I could delve much deeper into the potential ramifications of where this would lead, but I think I can summarize it by saying why not just promote a professional football minor league - if people (like RainMaker) seem to think players in college are not being properly compensated, then it should be pretty easy for entrepreneurs to start up a professional football league for college-aged kids and attract quality talent;

- I think the current rules limiting outside job income for kids on scholarship are too draconian;

- I do acknowledge that the current system is socialist in the sense that the entertainment value provided by football players and basketball players pays for the ability for gymnasts, cross-country runners, golfers, swimmers, volleyball players etc. to also get a chance to earn athletic scholarships, and that I'm OK with the "greater good" philosophy that underlines that view;

- I think the NCAA does a piss-poor job of enforcing the rules they put in place to prevent cheating via boosters paying players, and they've made some really poor decisions hurting athletes to placate coaches and/or pro-leagues (the NBA draft deadline rules being a clear example);

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I agree that the $2,000 cap is ridiculous. That won't buy you much of anything - especially food-wise if you're an athlete eating as much as athletes eat. That needs to go up, regardless of what I'm about to say next.

I agree about the $2,000 cap, but it should be noted that, at least at most big-time schools, athletes can eat for free.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

One thing I've heard pitched before is let kids get their endorsements, their jobs, but require that they put most of it in a trust until they fulfill the requirements of their agreement with the school - whether that be don't rape anyone, or graduate.

I'm not sure this really addresses the concerns about paying players. I suppose one advantage of this approach is it provides another motivation for the kids to be good citizens, and that's obviously a good thing...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I'm opposed to it because I think it would lead to a handful of teams collecting all of the best talent.

Then stop arguing that this is about the kids. It's about your enjoyment in college sports. You don't want kids to make money on the side because it makes the sport less exciting for you.

And I hate to break it to you about the handful of teams collecting all of the best talent, but that already happens. Take a look at the recruiting rankings going back the last 10 years. And your assumption implies that only a handful of schools have alumni/boosters/supporters that would be able to offer money. And that kids would only choose schools by what kind of extra cash they can earn on the side. It's a rather one-dimensional view of an 18 year old kid. Location, prestige, connection to coaching staff, playing time, education, and a slew of other factors still determine where kids end up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not sure this really addresses the concerns about paying players. I suppose one advantage of this approach is it provides another motivation for the kids to be good citizens, and that's obviously a good thing...

It might address some of the concerns beyond "they make enough already". (Which isn't really a concern, but seems to be the most popular reason for restricting their earnings). The big money isn't there on the surface inviting distraction, players aren't getting their money upfront and then holding the school hostage for playing time and coaching changes, you have a more subdued "elite" professional athlete/ fringe student who isn't living like a millionaire yet and still has to follow the rules of the school (even if he isn't really learning anything). Basically all the reasons the NCAA states when it talks about purity in collegiate athletics.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The problem with this take is it assumes that every kid that enters school at or very near the bare minimum academic requirements is going to fail. I'd love to see a study that looks at this, because I'm betting these "academic risk" kids succeed a lot more than you are implying - I've seen far too many stories of these success stories, as well as overall numbers showing football players graduating at levels similar too (or even better than) the rest of the student body to think that most of these kids fail.

Some could turn it around, but if you don't give the scholarship to the kid who doesn't deserve it on his own merit, you'd be forced to give it to - someone who does deserve it. Someone who did do at least something to get to that point. Maybe his 40 yard dash is a little slower. Oh well - he still did what was required to get into the school and I'm going to feel better for that kid than I am going to feel bad for the dullard who can run slightly faster. And that doesn't have to be a choir boy science genius - it's not that hard to get into a lot of division one schools. If you're conscious in high school, you should be able to do it, yet every year athletes have problems reaching even in the minimal existing standards.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by molson

"They make enough". There's any number of professions in the U.S. you could say that about (starting with college football coaches). That one alone just doesn't hold any water.

One thing I've heard pitched before is let kids get their endorsements, their jobs, but require that they put most of it in a trust until they fulfill the requirements of their agreement with the school - whether that be don't rape anyone, or graduate.

I guess I'm skeptical that you could have a system where the kids are given anything by an outsider without it turning into a free for all. I suppose you could have the shoe company pay the university, who then pays the student. But once any money starts sloshing around it becomes pretty hard to discern between clean and dirty money.

The “they make enough” argument is valid when the demand for scholarships is so much greater than the supply. Those are the rules of every labor market; yours, mine, and theirs.

Look, do I think the players are more deserving of millions of dollars than the jackass who was running the Fiesta Bowl? Of course, I just don't see a way to make it happen without destroying what we have.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I agree about the $2,000 cap, but it should be noted that, at least at most big-time schools, athletes can eat for free.

Oh of course. I meant off-campus food.

[molson]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

The “they make enough” argument is valid when the demand for scholarships is so much greater than the supply. Those are the rules of every labor market; yours, mine, and theirs.

Well, except for the fact that they're only marginally allowed to participate in the labor market, that's a big difference (I don't think you were one of the posters saying they shouldn't be allowed that, I'm just saying)

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then stop arguing that this is about the kids. It's about your enjoyment in college sports. You don't want kids to make money on the side because it makes the sport less exciting for you.

And I hate to break it to you about the handful of teams collecting all of the best talent, but that already happens. Take a look at the recruiting rankings going back the last 10 years. And your assumption implies that only a handful of schools have alumni/boosters/supporters that would be able to offer money. And that kids would only choose schools by what kind of extra cash they can earn on the side. It's a rather one-dimensional view of an 18 year old kid. Location, prestige, connection to coaching staff, playing time, education, and a slew of other factors still determine where kids end up.

When did I say it was all about what is best for the kid? Big time college football exists because it is mutually beneficial. The players get an education and an audition for the NFL, and the schools get prestige and fund raising opportunity. As with any mutual agreement, the players have to give something up to get something in return. This set up has worked for decades, so why do you want to change it?