New York Times on Sam Keller/EA Lawsuit: "It's about much more than video games"

[ODogg]

Making the college game into a professional sport would in fact hurt many of the student-athletes. Changing it into a pay-to-play pro sport, and making them just athletes instead of student-athletes, would mean those who are actually playing while getting an education would be bypassed in favor of simply the best athletes. Sure to some extent that happens at the bigger schools but there are a lot of athletes who are students, take it seriously and use their scholarships to get a degree. It's only a small percentage of Div 1A who utilize college athletics to go on to turn pro. We also have to realize that college sports goes far beyond just college football. Is there really going to be a sustainable market for womens synchronized swimming? Or discus throwing? On a pay-for-your-value type scale those athletes would not be needed, nor wanted and thus those sports would wither and die.

For anyone who thinks its an unfair system there are other professional football leagues that athletes can play in besides the NFL (and indirectly leading to the NFL) if they want to go that route and bypass college and all of its "unfair" rules. Anyone who feels they are being cheated should either re-think their situation and realize just how good they do have it or consider an alternate path if they still think they're being cheated. Partaking in the system knowing full well ahead of time what it is all about and then later crying foul makes one simply look either ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.

[Jr.]

I agree that college sports outside of football and basketball should not have pay-for-play value, because those sports do not make money for those schools or the NCAA. Those sports are largely able to exist because of the money made from football and basketball. I also agree that it is a small percentage of athletes that play college sports as stop before going pro as soon as possible. However, it doesn't do anyone any good (the schools or the athletes) to pretend that those athletes care about their education.

Going back to the original topic of the thread, these athletes deserve some kind of compensation for the money that they make the schools and the NCAA. Unfortunately, it's not likely or maybe even possible to determine how much money each athlete makes. That's why I say just let boosters give the athletes whatever they want to. The boosters would be able to determine the athlete's value on their own terms and the NCAA could keep their money without having to decide which athletes should be paid and which shouldn't. I also understand people wanting college athletics to remain "amateur" in nature, but it's far from that anymore and I don't see it going back anytime in the near future.

[ODogg]

I agree they deserve compensation and they receive it in the form of housing and a massively expensive education. You aren't making the argument they deserve compensation, you're putting forth the argument they deserve more compensation and that's one that I disagree with. Sure there are issues now and there always will be but you don't throw out the entire system because of a few dishonest people who can't follow the rules.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

I agree they deserve compensation and they receive it in the form of housing and a massively expensive education. You aren't making the argument they deserve compensation, you're putting forth the argument they deserve more compensation and that's one that I disagree with. Sure there are issues now and there always will be but you don't throw out the entire system because of a few dishonest people who can't follow the rules.

I'm making the point that they deserve compensation more comparable to the amount of money they generate (which is also why I'm not making the argument that the NCAA should pay all athletes). A free education and housing is great for many of the athletes that play college football and basketball, but I don't agree that Cam Newton, Mark Ingram, Andrew Luck, Justin Blackmon, AJ Green, or any of the other athletes that you see on commercials for games and that the fans pack stadiums to see should get the same compensation as the 3rd string QB.

I think they do need to throw out the system because these stories about rogue agents and extra benefits are getting ridiculous. You say it's a "few dishonest people," I'm of the mindset that it is way more than a few, but that the NCAA can't catch them all. If they just let boosters or agents give "extra benefits" to whomever they please, the NCAA wouldn't have to worry about catching anyone and could spend their time on other things (like how they can't crown a legit champion in their most profitable sport)

[PioneerRaptor]

Just because they can't stop agents and boosters from paying players, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, nor does it mean we should allow it. The government also can't stop people from murdering, so should we also allow this?

Obviously not. College is all about the education. Only 2.4% of the 9,000 players, roughly about 315 players, will make it to the NFL. The other 97.6% will have to work normal jobs like the rest of us. However, thanks to athletic scholarships, they were able to obtain free College Degrees to help get ahead of the rest of us.

[ODogg]

Baughn3 - the flaw in that argument is that it's a very, very tiny percentage of college football players who generate big money. For every Terrelle Pryor and Tim Tebow there are 20 no-names at smaller schools. You don't change the entire system to account for an anomaly. And the other flaw in that argument is that the big name players like Pryor and Tebow will go on to sign big paydays with the NFL so the argument of they're not getting compensated fails on that front as well.

I'm sure there are a lot of folks who agree with your argument but I don't think many of them realize exactly how it would ruin college football. If it became pay-to-play then the NFL would probably be on the hook for some of that money, if not all of it, because the schools would never subsidize it and use the "farm system for the NFL so the NFL should pay" defense. If it came to that the NFL would simply abolish the rule that athletes have to play in college and then you'd see the NFL become the NBA where big name players just come directly from high school and bypass college football. In effect implementing the plan you speak of would pretty much make college football a wasteland of those who aren't good enough to ever play in the NFL. Tuning in to see OSU-Michigan would be the equivalent of watching Yale vs. Princeton.

The players would be true student-athletes in a sense that the "real" athletes would be playing in the NFL and only those who are students first and have some athletic talent second would be left to play college football. How really interesting would it be to see a bunch of 1 star players vs. 1 star players in the big games like Auburn vs. Alabama or LSU vs. Florida? It wouldn't. College football would sink to become about as popular as college baseball currently is..

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by PioneerRaptor

Just because they can't stop agents and boosters from paying players, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, nor does it mean we should allow it. The government also can't stop people from murdering, so should we also allow this? Obviously not. College is all about the education. Only 2.4% of the 9,000 players, roughly about 315 players, will make it to the NFL. The other 97.6% will have to work normal jobs like the rest of us. However, thanks to athletic scholarships, they were able to obtain free College Degrees to help get ahead of the rest of us.

You're taking the analogy of paying athletes to murder way too far. Who got hurt when AJ Green sold his jersey for $1000 to an agent? You're right college is about the education, but big-time college basketball and football are not. They're about making money. If they weren't we wouldn't see college football teams playing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights when school is in session. And we wouldn't see preseason basketball tournaments in Puerto Rico and Alaska when school is in session.

I understand that everyone wants college football and basketball to be honorable and truly amateur, but it's not and hasn't been for many years now. What is so wrong about letting players earn some money on the side if they are talented enough? And I'm not talking about endorsements, I'm purely talking about boosters paying the players they feel deserve it.

If everyone truly wants an honorable system, then the NCAA as a whole needs to be blown up and restructured and players that don't really want to play college sports should be able to go pro whenever they want (I know that's not the NCAA's problem but still)

And why are they ahead of you if both you and the player have a degree?

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

Baughn3 - the flaw in that argument is that it's a very, very tiny percentage of college football players who generate big money. For every Terrelle Pryor and Tim Tebow there are 20 no-names at smaller schools. You don't change the entire system to account for an anomaly. And the other flaw in that argument is that the big name players like Pryor and Tebow will go on to sign big paydays with the NFL so the argument of they're not getting compensated fails on that front as well. I'm sure there are a lot of folks who agree with your argument but I don't think many of them realize exactly how it would ruin college football. If it became pay-to-play then the NFL would probably be on the hook for some of that money, if not all of it, because the schools would never subsidize it and use the "farm system for the NFL so the NFL should pay" defense. If it came to that the NFL would simply abolish the rule that athletes have to play in college and then you'd see the NFL become the NBA where big name players just come directly from high school and bypass college football. In effect implementing the plan you speak of would pretty much make college football a wasteland of those who aren't good enough to ever play in the NFL. Tuning in to see OSU-Michigan would be the equivalent of watching Yale vs. Princeton. The players would be true student-athletes in a sense that the "real" athletes would be playing in the NFL and only those who are students first and have some athletic talent second would be left to play college football. How really interesting would it be to see a bunch of 1 star players vs. 1 star players in the big games like Auburn vs. Alabama or LSU vs. Florida? It wouldn't. College football would sink to become about as popular as college baseball currently is..

I agree that it's a small percentage of athletes that generate lots of money and the majority of players in college football don't have much of an impact on the profit made by their school. But you can also assume that those players aren't the ones getting money from boosters, etc. either. This is why I'm not proposing the idea that the NCAA should pay athletes. It would be very difficult to figure out which athlete is making more profit and how much they should get in comparison to another player. If you allow the boosters, etc. to do whatever they want for any athlete they want, the process would take care of itself naturally. If Johnny Bigmoney at Alabama wants to pay Trent Richardson more than Mark Ingram, and not pay Preston Dial at all, that's his decision. The NCAA doesn't have to worry about what the boosters decide to do.

As for them getting big paydays, while that may be true for now, it's about to be changed when the new CBA is formed for the NFL. Rookie contracts are a big cog in that deal as the owners hate it and the majority of the veterans do as well, so the days of the #1 pick signing for $40+ million guaranteed will be over soon. While players that are drafted in the first 2 rounds do get paid well, what about players that are great, until they get injured in college? It almost happened to Willis McGahee (he lost upwards of 20 million dropping out of the top 10 to 22 after that horrific knee injury), but fortunately he was able to bounce back and get a solid 2nd contract. The dangers of football make it to where players need to make as much money as they are capable of as soon as they can because the likelihood of a major, career-ending injury is higher than probably any other sport.

I don't see how you made the jump to pay-for-play being the NFL's problem. Why would they have to front the money? They aren't fronting any money that agents, boosters, runners, etc. are paying to college athletes now, how would it be different if it became legal? Again, this is why I think the NCAA shouldn't pay athletes, but they should allow the boosters to.

Also, I know I brought up the idea of the superconferences disbanding from the NCAA and becoming a minor-league of sorts for the NFL, but OSU, Michigan, Auburn, Alabama, and every other major program would be a part of those superconferences, so you would still see elite athletes playing in those games.