NCAA, EA allowed to seek dismissal from O'Bannon case

[Mr2Nice]

Quote: Originally Posted by guitar4468

First off, many schools are around or over 100,000 if you include all you get. Room and board, Meals, Clothes, Books, Tuition, Tutors, Bowl Gifts, and $300 to $400 dollars every month in spending money. If they live off campus they get $800 to $900 dollars. Not to mention many of them sign up for grants, which gives them anywhere from $2000 to $5000 grand every semester. Also, there is now a 4 year scholarship the schools can use and in most of the cases, even if the player is not doing well on the field, they keep them on scholarship for at least four years. They start cutting guys, high school coaches will get upset stop sending them players. I'm all for players receiving a little bit more money a month because they cannot work. I am not in favor of paying players based on how much money they may bring in. Its supposed to be amateur, try to at least keep it that way. Letting them sell items, things will go down a slippery slope. The rules were set up to keep things fair around the leagues. Its not the NCAA's fault the NFL will not let them in. There are no laws, it is the NFL rules that you have to be 3 years out of high school. Why is this NCAA's fault? If the NFL had a farm league for younger players, this would not be as big of an issue. The NFL is using the NCAA as a farm league and it cost them nothing. Should the NCAA should have to bend its rules because there is not another league that doesn't exist? Again they are not forced to do any of it. They know what they are getting into and they make the choice to have free education and the slim chance of going to the NFL.

NCAA is the farm league for one. So why pay for players when u can have the NCAA do all the dirty work for free in return the NCAA makes money off the athletes. Also there have been many players who never got to a bowl game.

As for amatuer athletics that went bye bye a long time ago. Even before USA sent the Dream Team for the Summer Games. Grants are not always except actually most are declined. So most athletes do not get access to grant money like you think. If grants were so easy to get everyone who is in college or ever went would have never had to pay back student loans because they would have just used grant money. It would not pay the whole amount but it would make it quite a bit less.

You also do realize the school makes money off the classes,books,room,board,meals and clothes off of the student body in general. So it's not like they are really loosing out on much to give lets say 200 students free items but charge the rest of the students that attend such school. So thats pretty much a write off. Since the boosters donate big bucks because the football or basketball team is doing well that pretty much pays for what they give the student athletes!

I do not understand when you say they should pay the students a little bit more but u wanna keep it amature? So 300-400 dollars they get is almost enough? That they get paid which makes them what? Pro student athletes.

If I earn somethin. It's mine but I can't sell it because the NCAA would rather have my jersey for sale on their website so they can make money. Or how about my photo, or even signed autograph. PLEASE!!! Don't even try to defend the NCAA when they pull shady crap like that.

Change scares people, they like everything to be set it stone but its time for pro student athletes to make some money. If they had a union u bet they would see more cash than 300-400 dollars. Time for them to lawyer up and push for rights that they should have had years and years ago. In particular college football is the #2 sport in the USA. You can't tell me that a school aren't rollin in the money.

I never here of a big university say well we made 10 million dollars since our football team made a BCS bowl so we are going to drop tution 25% for a semester.

Money,Money and Mo Money. Plain & Simple
Just layin down more and more facts!

[awill25]

Quote: Originally Posted by guitar4468

Also, there is now a 4 year scholarship the schools can use and in most of the cases, even if the player is not doing well on the field, they keep them on scholarship for at least four years. They start cutting guys, high school coaches will get upset stop sending them players.

Not entirley accurate. That legislation was proposed, but not yet passed. And not likely to get passed regardless of what you may read.

As far as payment goes, I was a college athlete and was just fine with not getting paid....at the time. In retrospect, I absolutely feel I, along with my teammates should have been. Unless you have played at a high level or been associated with a college program in some cpacity, I feel it is hard to understand the extreme demands placed on college athletes. To illustrate this, I will provide an example of a Monday schedule from my freshman year.

7:30am - 8:30am: Wake up/Breakfast
9:00am-9:50am: Class
10:00am-10:50am: Class
11:00am-12:15pm: Weight Room
12:15pm-1:00pm: Lunch
1:00pm-2:15pm: Tutor
3:00pm-3:40pm: Individual Workouts
4:30pm-5:30pm: Pickup
5:30pm-6:30pm: Dinner
6:30pm-9:00pm: Class

That schedule is right off the sheet I have kept for 10 years. So unless you have lived it...you can't possibly understand those types of demands.

[ainokmw]

I've never understood why they don't give out athletic stipends. It's not like paying students is an impossibility. When I was in college, I was in student government for three years, and at least 10-15 of the elected officials had a stipend written into the constitution for their time and services. Given the kind of money that these students are raking in, it's not a financial issue.

At the same time, I'd love to see a crackdown on the kinds of money given to head coaches. Schools are there for education, there's no need to be siphoning millions that could go elsewhere to keep the ego of some ball coach in check. I'd love to see some across the board rule that coaches can only make as much as the median of the ten highest-paid professors. Will the Nick Sabans of the world flee for other pastures? Sure. But college football will still exist, there will still be people willing to coach for 90-100k a year, and it will still be entertaining.

[utahman19]

Quote: Originally Posted by awill25

Not entirley accurate. That legislation was proposed, but not yet passed. And not likely to get passed regardless of what you may read. As far as payment goes, I was a college athlete and was just fine with not getting paid....at the time. In retrospect, I absolutely feel I, along with my teammates should have been. Unless you have played at a high level or been associated with a college program in some cpacity, I feel it is hard to understand the extreme demands placed on college athletes. To illustrate this, I will provide an example of a Monday schedule from my freshman year. 7:30am - 8:30am: Wake up/Breakfast 9:00am-9:50am: Class 10:00am-10:50am: Class 11:00am-12:15pm: Weight Room 12:15pm-1:00pm: Lunch 1:00pm-2:15pm: Tutor 3:00pm-3:40pm: Individual Workouts 4:30pm-5:30pm: Pickup 5:30pm-6:30pm: Dinner 6:30pm-9:00pm: Class That schedule is right off the sheet I have kept for 10 years. So unless you have lived it...you can't possibly understand those types of demands.

Yeah, I just can't possibly understand. Not at all.

8:00am class
9:30 work
12:00 lunch
12:30 work
3:00 class
4:00 class
5:00 class
6:00 dinner - something quick that I have to make myself
6:30 homework - no free tutor

No scholarship. No free meals. No free tutors. No free housing. No free books. And the University makes money off of every student, not just athletes. Research brings more money into a University than athletics ever will, and those research students don't make anything either.

They do it for the experience and exposure that will help them in their chosen field. Why should athletes be any different?

[awill25]

Quote: Originally Posted by utahman19

Yeah, I just can't possibly understand. Not at all. 8:00am class 9:30 work 12:00 lunch 12:30 work 3:00 class 4:00 class 5:00 class 6:00 dinner - something quick that I have to make myself 6:30 homework - no free tutor No scholarship. No free meals. No free tutors. No free housing. No free books. And the University makes money off of every student, not just athletes. Research brings more money into a University than athletics ever will, and those research students don't make anything either. They do it for the experience and exposure that will help them in their chosen field. Why should athletes be any different?

While I appreciate your argument, I do not agree. And that is ok. How boring would the world be if we all agreed anyway!

As an adult who now works a 60-70 hour work week supporting a family, I can honestly say that working is much easier than the job I had as a collegiate athlete. Going to work and getting your butt busted in the weight room/on the field or floor are 2 different things.

Adding to this, those kids give up more than you realize from 10-18 years old. I will always remember dedicating my entire summer to AAU ball and being in the gym all day when I wasn't traveling. My buddies were all at the pool/partying and whatnot and I was obviously wanting to do that, but didn't have that option....if I wanted to attend college that is.

I have many times seen the argument "Not everyone can play college ball". This is true! So my rebuttal is to talk to a collegiate manager who works with a team! Those guys see the life college athletes live first hand. I have yet to meet one who disagrees with the notion of paying players.

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by TDenverFan

I thought 1 team was not going to be in?

That seems like a dumb decision if true, its money they make for doing nothing

[ndfan1993]

Ok - start paying the players. Then take away all of the free stuff they earn over the course of their stay (tuition, room and board, books, food, clothes) since they will be earning a pay check.

[ReadyForTheShow]

My issue with paying players is simply that it won't be fair. Regardless of whether Alabama, Texas, Michigan etc. break even based on the profit gained from the previous year boosters would most certainly fuel the salary demand in a pay for play scheme. I feel smaller schools would be left out to dry because of the lack of funding. I think many agree on this point, to some extent.

However what about player safety or locker room chemistry. There are certainly some players who would "earn" more in this scheme based on how good they are but what about players on the team who aren't paid as much? How would all this be determined? Personally I would understand why my Heisman QB is worth more but why would I not receive however much money as well? While I wouldn't "miss a block" I certainly would toss it around in my head because I am just as valuable.

Finally I think my issue is specifically outside sources or use of an image or likeness. For instance, Johnny Football signs autographs on his time, therefore he should get payed for that, by the school? No, unless they say, he will be signing autographs this day and they make an event out of it. Texas A&M wants to sell his jersey, well then he receives a bit of the money. Maybe this is what pay-for-play means, but the way I see it is everyone makes it seem like they should get a salary, which is absurd in my opinion. More "spending money?" Sure, or athletes being allowed to get paid for autographs or sponsorship? Yes. But money for actually playing on the field is something I can't justify in my mind. Once again it's purely an opinion.

Also last I checked there was one school saying they won't be in, but the SEC will be. (As of now) I honestly wouldn't purchase a game without licensing or a missing team. Apart from good game-play and features etc., I don't pay for a football game, I pay because it's college football. Sigh I hope it works out,