Northwestern Football Players attempting to become a union

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No, my argument is that this unionization attempt will result in an attempt to pay players, and if that happens and the courts rule that that must happen, big boy college athletics as we know it will end. Universities will be unable to field anything but the barest bones of teams as we currently know them.

In my opinion, that is figuratively the death of college sports, if not literally.

Yet D2 and D3 can somehow avoid this problem that you feel D1 schools won't be able to figure out.

Also, these schools are still bringing in a shitload of money from TV, licensing, and ticket revenue. You're acting like all these schools are dirt poor and barely scraping by and you're adding a huge expense. And paying players doesn't have to be mandatory, some schools can, some schools can offer scholarships only, some can offer none. Not a big deal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And eventually, it becomes baseball, with the Yankees of the NCAA winning it all every year, and smaller schools have no chance to compete.

Yeah because college sports as we know it is all about parity. School with $150 million budget plays school with $1 million budget.

[SackAttack]

If a coach thinks he can earn more money elsewhere, he can play the field, and nobody bats an eyelash. Oh, there's radio backlash over what it means for "the kids," but the coach is able to do his own thing. If he thinks he's underpaid, he can flirt with Texas (or whomever) or actually go there.

If a player thinks he isn't getting enough playing time, he can transfer...if his school will let him. Then he gets to sit out a year, in most cases, before he can actually play for the new school, which puts him behind the 8 ball in competing for playing time - unless, of course, he's a star player.

But if he were a star player, he'd have been starting in the first place.

It's easy to say "Oh, they get a scholarship, that should be enough for them," but the reality of the situation is that "big time" college athletics are essentially indentured servitude. If you sign the LOI, you're signing an employment contract that the school is under no obligation to abide by, but inside of which you have very little wiggle room to improve your situation.

Those like Jon who want to see the players advocating for change go to the "pits of hell where they belong" are, IMO, little better than the poor white Southern farmers in the 19th century who went to war because they might, someday, be able to afford to have slaves of their own.

That's all this is. It's a defense of oligarchy derived from sympathy with the oligarchs' goals. Either pay the players, or give them the same freedom the coaches already enjoy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Matthean

How would they have time for jobs on top of school and sports? It would seem like being a full-time athlete and student would be enough.

That's not really any of our business.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

In my opinion, that is figuratively the death of college sports, if not literally.

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Matthean

How would they have time for jobs on top of school and sports? It would seem like being a full-time athlete and student would be enough.

That could be up to each player, coach, and each individual school, but we've seen that players have enough time to get in trouble off-campus on occasion, so they have enough time to say, make paid appearances for local car dealerships in the off season.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by molson

That could be up to each player, coach, and each individual school, but we've seen that players have enough time to get in trouble off-campus on occasion, so they have enough time to say, make paid appearances for local car dealerships in the off season.

They could even make club appearances and get paid while getting in trouble. Seriously, imagine Leinart if this had been allowed. Im actually all for this because we've hit the point where its just silly they can't do this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by chadritt

They could even make club appearances and get paid while getting in trouble. Seriously, imagine Leinart if this had been allowed. Im actually all for this because we've hit the point where its just silly they can't do this.

And the thing is, I'm sure Leinart DID get money and stuff paid for all over L.A. I'm sure that's part of the draw of a big program in L.A. We just don't want to hear about it, I guess.

[RainMaker]

No one seems to throw a fit when an actor is filming movies and attending events while attending classes at a University. No one gives a shit if a student is working 2-3 jobs on the side to pay for rent.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flounder

How is that different from the current state of affairs, though?

Currently, even with the SEC's dominance of late, there is still a good chance that any number of teams from the FBS level can win trhe national championships. I am going to guess some 25 teams, at least, have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship with the right coach and schedule, and that's probably being conservative, and not even considering the impact of the playoff.

In a system where it's pay as pay goes, a la baseball, there will probably 5-6 teams (USC, Texas, Notre Dame, a handful of SEC teams, maybe Michigan or Ohio State, that's it).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

Is there more parity in college football than there is in baseball? (Alabama has won more championships than the Yankees in recent years).

But anyway, I don't think a desire for parity is a good reason to deprive someone the opportunity to earn money from an outside source. And I don't think that's even the NCAA's stated or real opposition to it. They just don't want to share licensing money.

I believe there is. Alabama is on a historic run of success under perhaps the best college coach in history (or at least the best for the system as it is in place today).

I'm not arguing for the purity of the NCAA's motives. I am just noting, unless we're calling for a massive upheaval of what we know today as college sports, this is not a deisred outcome.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

In a system where it's pay as pay goes, a la baseball, there will probably 5-6 teams (USC, Texas, Notre Dame, a handful of SEC teams, maybe Michigan or Ohio State, that's it).

I think it is rather proven that Oregon would be on that list.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yet D2 and D3 can somehow avoid this problem that you feel D1 schools won't be able to figure out.

Also, these schools are still bringing in a shitload of money from TV, licensing, and ticket revenue. You're acting like all these schools are dirt poor and barely scraping by and you're adding a huge expense. And paying players doesn't have to be mandatory, some schools can, some schools can offer scholarships only, some can offer none. Not a big deal.

Again, D2 and D3 get by with very limited scholarships and are massively subsuidized by their school funds. What they make in merchandising and tickets ales and what not is a pittance of what is generated on the FBS level. And most schools at the FBS level are not generating a profit with their AD (much less lower than that).

If players demand pay at one school, what makes you think other schools will be able to get away with less, and that's even if the courts don't make it mandatory.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah because college sports as we know it is all about parity. School with $150 million budget plays school with $1 million budget.

In what sport and how often does that happen? If you're going to throw out an example, I would love to see how often such a disparity in a game between two similarly leveled schools happens.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one seems to throw a fit when an actor is filming movies and attending events while attending classes at a University. No one gives a shit if a student is working 2-3 jobs on the side to pay for rent.

Likewise, no one throws a fit when the research assistant on a work study grant assigns all of his work product to the univeristy.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And if college sports die, either figuratively or literally, the major professional leagues will establish something like baseball's minor league system, wherein players can be paid as they pursue playing at the highest level.

The sturm und drang from those not directly involved over the death of college athletics boils down to I'M ENTITLED TO SEE MY FAVORITE COLLEGE FIELD A TEAM IN THE SPORT OF MY CHOICE AND THESE WHINY KIDS ARE RUINING IT

It has nothing to do with what's actually good for either the schools or the athletes.

I agree, the pro sports will do that, because they have to. Not sure what point you're trying to make there with that. We're not talking about paid minor leagues, we're talking about the current system of college athletics.

Is it okay if I disagree with you, because I get the sense from your posts that I am evil and an oppressive person if I do?

Considering that the big money college athletics brings in supports thousands of student athletes who don't generate a penny for their schools, net total, I think the current system does tremendous good for those student athletes and those schools. And that's on top of the advertising/promotion they receive as schools which directly leads to a huge application levels at these schools from potential non-athlete students around the country.

And you and I will, I suppose, just not see eye to eye when I state I believe that sizable scholarships, room and board, and food stipends are plenty to pay for those athletes to represent their teams on the field. I certainly would have traded spots with any one of them, rather than having to work nearly a fulltime job to get myself through college.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I think it is rather proven that Oregon would be on that list.

Touché. (And throw on Okie State, I suppose, too)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

In what sport and how often does that happen? If you're going to throw out an example, I would love to see how often such a disparity in a game between two similarly leveled schools happens.

In all sports. Most of the schools below play at the same level.

USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE

How can you pretend to care about parity when schools with $100+ million budgets are playing schools with a $10 million budget? Is the SEC playing in the title game just total luck? Do the schools in the Sun Belt have a chance at that level too? Come on.

[Chief Rum]

FWIW, I do see these issues with the current system, and I would love to see them solved (the boosters, players getting a bigger cut of the money they generate, disparities from school to school and sport to sport, etc.). But I just don't believe out and out paying the players is doable unless you simply want to scrap the whole system entirely.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Again, D2 and D3 get by with very limited scholarships and are massively subsuidized by their school funds. What they make in merchandising and tickets ales and what not is a pittance of what is generated on the FBS level. And most schools at the FBS level are not generating a profit with their AD (much less lower than that).

If players demand pay at one school, what makes you think other schools will be able to get away with less, and that's even if the courts don't make it mandatory.

I'm not for forcing schools to play players. If a school wants to, they can. If a school can't afford it, they won't. Not much different than how it is now. Some schools can afford to pay a coach $5 million, most can't. Some schools can afford a $50 million training facility, some can't.

Each school can determine where they want their money to go and what level they want to play at. Schools pay students for jobs on campus all the time. This isn't some unheard of concept.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In all sports. Most of the schools below play at the same level.

USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE

How can you pretend to care about parity when schools with $100+ million budgets are playing schools with a $10 million budget? Is the SEC playing in the title game just total luck? Do the schools in the Sun Belt have a chance at that level too? Come on.

First of all, you offered $150 M to $1 M, not $10 M. And even at $10 M, you go down all the way to #192 in this revenue list before you get to a school that is below $10 M in revenue (Austin Peay). AP is not even in the FBS. These schools are not on the same level of any sort, and every fall, we excoriate SEC teams (and others) for playing schools on a level of Austin Peay.

It's an easy strawman to throw out $10 M as your bottom end on a scale of schools if you don't acknowledge schools at that level don't even play on the same level as the big schools, eh?

Just eyeballing this list, I am going to guess most FBS schools are within $50 M of each other in total revenue at worst. There is certainly a disparity between big schools and smaller schools, even at the FBS level, but it's not on the level of baseball, where the Astros are supposed to be passed off as entirely the same "level" as the Yankees.

And, BTW, thanks for providing a list that also shows how most of these schools, even some of the biggest revenue schools, need to be subsidized by their school funds.

[Sun Tzu]

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But I just don't believe out and out paying the players is doable unless you simply want to scrap the whole system entirely.

So you don't want the school to pay players because you believe the schools will overextend themselves to the extent that college sports will cease to exist. And you don't want outside forces to pay players because you're worried about parity. Is that a fair summary? Is there any other reasons that connect those two things, like, you just don't think athletes should get paid because they get enough anyway? It feels like that's an underlying issue for a lot of the public's opposition.

Edit: And what about the non-monetary stuff that is also driving these calls for organization and obtaining a voice for the players? Like the injury issue? It sounds like you're saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to organize and advocate for stuff like that, because it's too risky, because the next thing you'll know they're asking for money.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

Yes. There was apparently a concern that Kevin Ware could be kicked out of school AND stuck with the medical bills when he destroyed his leg playing for Louisville.

Kevin Ware injury could put scholarship at risk - CBS News

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not for forcing schools to play players. If a school wants to, they can. If a school can't afford it, they won't. Not much different than how it is now. Some schools can afford to pay a coach $5 million, most can't. Some schools can afford a $50 million training facility, some can't.

Each school can determine where they want their money to go and what level they want to play at. Schools pay students for jobs on campus all the time. This isn't some unheard of concept.

I think that's the disconnect there. You see a choice. I don't. I don't see schools having a choice when it comes to this issue because I don't think players will go to schools that don't pay more than scholarships unless they don't have the ability/talent to do so. And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.

The schools that pay will have to massively cut down their ADs and the sports they offer and the number of student athletes they can support or hike up student tuitions to a ridiculous level to compensate. The other schools (the ones which can't pay) will be forced to drop back to D2 or D3 level, and that's assuming scholarships will be allowed then (and pay is not required). If pay is required, smaller schools will pretty much drop athletics altogether.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.

The courts aren't going to require a small school to spend money on player compensation just because Texas does. There's just no interpretation of Title IX that would require that. Title IX is about gender discrimination, and its not confined only to athletics.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Yes. There was apparently a concern that Kevin Ware could be kicked out of school AND stuck with the medical bills when he destroyed his leg playing for Louisville.

Kevin Ware injury could put scholarship at risk - CBS News

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

[RainMaker]

They almost all play on the same in the other 20 or so sports that are competed in at the college level. Austin Peay is Division 1 and plays for the same championship Ohio State plays for in those other sports. There is a reason the schools at the top of that list are winning much more than the one's at the bottom.

If you or anyone else who cries about parity actually cared about parity, you'd be demanding more revenue sharing among schools when it comes to TV contracts. You'd be demanding limits to how much a school can spend on their athletic department, or at least basing the divisions on it. You'd be against huge gaps in training facilities and coaches salaries. You'd be screaming about big schools never playing road games against small schools.

College sports has never had parity. It's always had it's powerhouse and it's weaklings. And no one seems to give a shit about it accept when it's used as some kind of scare tactic to not pay players. I get it if you don't want them being paid, but lets keep the parity bullshit out of it because college fans don't give a shit about parity.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

You'll notice the northwestern players aren't actually talking about getting paid, they're talking about things like this.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

So you don't want the school to pay players because you believe the schools will overextend themselves to the extent that college sports will cease to exist. And you don't want outside forces to pay players because you're worried about parity. Is that a fair summary? Is there any other reasons that connect those two things, like, you just don't think athletes should get paid because they get enough anyway? It feels like that's an underlying issue for a lot of the public's opposition.

Edit: And what about the non-monetary stuff that is also driving these calls for organization and obtaining a voice for the players? Like the injury issue? It sounds like you're saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to organize and advocate for stuff like that, because it's too risky, because the next thing you'll know they're asking for money.

I actually state above that I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.

But, yes, your first two points accurately represent my point, as it relates to those specific issues.

I'm not against player advocacy or organizations arguing for them, as a general rule. It's just that I am not naive enough to believe that the point of those organizations is simply to handle inequities among players or smaller issues than pay. I believe that this is being set up primarily to result in pay for play and that that is its only logical conclusion.

I would love to see adjustments to the system that don't involve pay which would settle matters such as injury issues or giving a voice to players. I have yet to see any such attempt, though, that isn't just a veil for pay for play.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Grover

True. I find it pretty abhorrent that most states in the country have a collegiate sports coach as the highest paid state employee.

Red Herring. AD and Boosters pay the coaches NOT the state.

Originally Posted by molson

How? If it violates Title IX to compensate certain athletes more than others (which I doubt), then maybe schools will just not pay athletes, or maneuver around it, instead of shutting down an entire billion dollar industry. The players aren't going to be able to negotiate for something illegal.

There's so much money in this. It's not just going to all implode for all the involved entities if athletes try to have more of a say on monetary and non-monetary issues. That just makes no sense.

There are already "abort mission" plans at every major D1 program in the works.

For example, Football and Men's basketball make money. Men's BBall head count is offset with Women's BBall and the facilities are the same.

Add 100 females to sports with low overhead (Tennis, Golf and rowing come to mind locally) and dissolve EVERY OTHER MEN's and WOMEN's Sport immediately. The AD is still profitable, only now about 200 students per school don't get scholarships.


Do we even want to peel the onion back to Pell grants?
Atletic Scholarships dont get counted towards Pell Grant eligibility. Thats $5k/year to MOST student athletes. Plus the NCAA SAOF which gets abused EVERYWHERE.

Student athletes dont have it as good as most think with mandatory practices, class structures etc. They also have it much better than many realize.

The NCAA allows a $200/year clothing allowance. A Nike hoodie costs .89 to manufacture according to Nike documents. So an athlete could for example get ~200 of these hoodies with a $50 MSRP....now cut that in half for a quick sale to the local sports apparel shop and you have $5,000 extra right there. Strangely enough these athlete direct clothing articles come with tags on them and every college campus in America has more than 1 clothing shop near by. Its all about how the transaction is managed.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

That rule alone is atrocious. So, basically the NCAA is saying this:

"Come play for our school! Risk your life every time you come onto the field, and we'll make millions of dollars on your name! If you get hurt, you'll live in pain for the rest of your life, we won't pay your medical bills, and you'll get kicked out of school!"

Nice.

The far more common practice is for coaches to cut some chaff by moving players to medical scholarships that don't count against the team's scholarship limit. They honor the kid's scholarship, but he can't play intercollegiate sports anymore.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think that's the disconnect there. You see a choice. I don't. I don't see schools having a choice when it comes to this issue because I don't think players will go to schools that don't pay more than scholarships unless they don't have the ability/talent to do so. And that's even if the courts allow schools to not pay, which they may not, if the matter is brought before a judge.

The schools that pay will have to massively cut down their ADs and the sports they offer and the number of student athletes they can support or hike up student tuitions to a ridiculous level to compensate. The other schools (the ones which can't pay) will be forced to drop back to D2 or D3 level, and that's assuming scholarships will be allowed then (and pay is not required). If pay is required, smaller schools will pretty much drop athletics altogether.

Players go to schools that don't offer scholarships and play there. And schools choose not to offer scholarships and still have a bevy of sports.

Schools may have to cut areas. They may not be able to spend $50 million on a football training facility. They may not be able to spend $7 million on a head coach. But this won't require them to drop all their sports. They still have an insane amount of revenue coming in and schools at the D2 and D3 level have been doing it just fine without those revenues.

And pay is not going to be required. There is nothing in the legal decisions that would force every school to pay their players. Those who choose to will and those who won't won't. No different from any of the other expenses an athletic department has to choose to make every year.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They almost all play on the same in the other 20 or so sports that are competed in at the college level. Austin Peay is Division 1 and plays for the same championship Ohio State plays for in those other sports. There is a reason the schools at the top of that list are winning much more than the one's at the bottom.

If you or anyone else who cries about parity actually cared about parity, you'd be demanding more revenue sharing among schools when it comes to TV contracts. You'd be demanding limits to how much a school can spend on their athletic department, or at least basing the divisions on it. You'd be against huge gaps in training facilities and coaches salaries. You'd be screaming about big schools never playing road games against small schools.

College sports has never had parity. It's always had it's powerhouse and it's weaklings. And no one seems to give a shit about it accept when it's used as some kind of scare tactic to not pay players. I get it if you don't want them being paid, but lets keep the parity bullshit out of it because college fans don't give a shit about parity.

I am going to guess that the budgets for those other sports are a lot more comparable than they are in football. Just because an athletic department generates a large amount of money doesn't mean it gives a similar percentage increase to other sports. Especially considering that the big boy sports engender costs which you don't see in other sports, such as the coaches salaries, the more expensive facilities and stadiums, the recruiting and increased travel, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I actually state above that I believe athletes receive enough for what they do through the scholarship system, along with room, board and food, for that to be an acceptable payment for being allowed to play on the college sports squad.

You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am going to guess that the budgets for those other sports are a lot more comparable than they are in football. Just because an athletic department generates a large amount of money doesn't mean it gives a similar percentage increase to other sports. Especially considering that the big boy sports engender costs which you don't see in other sports, such as the coaches salaries, the more expensive facilities and stadiums, the recruiting and increased travel, etc.

Are you really trying to argue that there is parity in college sports?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Hold the phone. Did I read that college athletes on a sports scholarship will get their scholarships revoked if they can no longer play due to injuries?

I cant speak for every school on this, but I can tell you I personally am an exception to this anecdote. And I was a non depth chart OL...my multiple knee surgeries (5 in total) were picked up in full and my scholarship was picked up by the booster organization. I did not count against the numbers and was not on an athletic 'ship but I was a special student scholar exemption...at any point there were 8-10 of these guys . The nicer coaches even use this "program" for evaluation misses or busts.

Now if you dont do your part and remain academically eligible or violate the good faith clauses then you got walked off.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

And what is the value of the free publicity and exposure he received BECAUSE of aTm national prominence and existing media deals.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And what is the value of the free publicity and exposure he received BECAUSE of aTm national prominence and existing media deals.

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.

Now try saying that in April.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Players go to schools that don't offer scholarships and play there. And schools choose not to offer scholarships and still have a bevy of sports.

Schools may have to cut areas. They may not be able to spend $50 million on a football training facility. They may not be able to spend $7 million on a head coach. But this won't require them to drop all their sports. They still have an insane amount of revenue coming in and schools at the D2 and D3 level have been doing it just fine without those revenues.

And pay is not going to be required. There is nothing in the legal decisions that would force every school to pay their players. Those who choose to will and those who won't won't. No different from any of the other expenses an athletic department has to choose to make every year.

Again, non-scholarship sports (which is all sports below most of the top end schools) is ALL paid by a school's general fund and the student body in general. There isn't some magical revenue somewhere for D2 or D3 schools. So not only do the athletes themselves pay their own way there, but the rest of the school, which doesn't even participate in those sports, also pays for those athletes to play.

Can it be done? Of course. But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

So, if you're advocating for the elimination, of all that, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. I personally don't want to see that happen, so I am not for this.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you really trying to argue that there is parity in college sports?

Define parity. Of course the playing field is not equal. But I would argue it is more equal than baseball or international club soccer (and not as equal as the sal cap pro leagues).

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Now try saying that in April.

I'll be able to say it if he blows his leg out or gets in a serious car accident. He's already provided A&M extraordinary value for which he still may never receive compensation other than glory.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Again, non-scholarship sports (which is all sports below most of the top end schools) is ALL paid by a school's general fund and the student body in general. There isn't some magical revenue somewhere for D2 or D3 schools. So not only do the athletes themselves pay their own way there, but the rest of the school, which doesn't even participate in those sports, also pays for those athletes to play.

Can it be done? Of course. But only if you want big time college sports as we know it to say goodbye. No more March Madness. No more BCS. No College World Series. Nothing that requires extensive travel or year round support.

So, if you're advocating for the elimination, of all that, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. I personally don't want to see that happen, so I am not for this.

This makes zero sense. If you allow schools to have the choice to pay players, they will all decide to eliminate events that generate billions of dollars? That sounds like the dumbest strategy ever.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You think Johnny Manziel received fair market value for his services? That his value in a free market is whatever a year at Texas A&M costs?

I didn't say players should receive fair market value.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This makes zero sense. If you allow schools to have the choice to pay players, they will all decide to eliminate events that generate billions of dollars? That sounds like the dumbest strategy ever.

Did you actually look at the link of revenues you posted? How many schools do you see there showing a profit, even with these events generating billions of dollars?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His bank account would say $0 at the moment. He doesn't get paid for any of that.

Actually he has already been paid in advance by his agent...(well he hasn't because he doesn't need it, his dad is a millionaire..but every other declared to be drafted player has.)

But aside from that what is his marketability to Nike/Adidas/Reebok the day he leaves aTm compared to the day he arrived?

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Did you actually look at the link of revenues you posted? How many schools do you see there showing a profit, even with these events generating billions of dollars?

Athletic departments aren't designed to generate profits. They don't have shareholders.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Athletic departments aren't designed to generate profits. They don't have shareholders.

Neither do private companies..

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If he went straight to the NFL (for example) in 3 years he would not get the PT and subsequent recognition he did in college. That is the fallacy in the argument IMHO, its not the stars that lose out. On the contrary the benefit nicely in the increased early media exposure and endorsement opportunities. Its the run of the mill guys who get ground up spit out and never make a dime.

The fallacy is this idea that future earnings should allow for price fixing.

It's saying that Kristen Stewart shouldn't be paid for her role in the Twilight movies because it's good publicity and she'll get money down the line as the series makes her popular.

We all would laugh at that concept in every other industry. But when it comes to college sports you have to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it.