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

[12]

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 agree 100 percent, ODogg.

I am tired of the sense of entitlement that exists EVERYWHERE in our country. These kids sign letters of intent, they are not stupid, they know that they will not be paid monetarily, they WILL receive free housing and a free education in exchange for their talents on the playing field to further the school's program both performance-wise and possibly financially. If a kid does not like it, or feels that it is unfair, then train for three years without going to college and enter the NFL Draft. Most of them are adults when they sign their letter of intent, so if they don't like the terms (not being monetarily compensated) then they need to be men and not sign if that's a problem.

There is a lack of accountability in play here when it comes to this topic. THEY KNOW THE TERMS.

I am speaking strictly with student-athletes in relation to their playing/compensation, not whether or not they get paid for being in a video game.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by Baughn3

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)

They can get that when they get to the pros. If they don't get to the pros, well, hopefully they took their education seriously...

Otherwise, just take your free education and housing and be thankful that you're getting a top-notch education while playing a game that you love.

I think they deserve nothing more than they get.

If they don't like it, don't sign the letter of intent to enroll. It's really that simple.

[12]

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..

Probably more like 50. Or 100.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by UniversityofArizona

what about the players who want to play football and earn their way into the nfl but have no interest in the education? for many of these athletes the school side of the issue is a burden and not a benefit for many of the students around them the educational side can suffer because coaches and professors are hooking them up with easier grades and coming up with bogus classes with little educational value how many thousands upon thousands of athletes have never gotten a shot at the sport they love because they didn't have the gpa or an interest in school? lets be real. should they be punished for life when there are no other practical routes for athletes to take btw if the education were really that valuable to the athletes or their coaches, athletic graduation rates at many of these schools including my own would not be so damn awful the sport is all about money (just look at conference expansion), and what these kids can offer the university which is why they get scholarships in the first place because the benefits far outweigh the costs for both the schools and the ncaa personally i believe if you want true amateurism in college sports there needs to be minor league systems for football and basketball and have universities stop giving out athletic scholarships so that these places can actually focus on giving more deserving students "that great education" i feel if athletes in college paid their own way or earned academic scholarships then that would truly bring back the amateurism everyone seems to believe should exist in collegiate sports finally, whats so bad about having a european soccer style league play where the best 2 teams from the bottom league replace the worst 2 teams from the top league every year in a way that all of a sudden makes the clippers or lions of the world try a little bit harder.

There's paths and destinations that I want to get to with my career but that doesn't mean that I don't have to suck it up and do some things that I don't want to do for a while in order to get there. Everything is not always laid out perfectly for you. Sometimes you have to suck it up and eat some dirt in order to get to where you want to be.

Sorry, weak argument. If school is such a burden, you don't want the NFL enough. Or skip school, and spend the next three years training yourself to get there.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by CuseGirl

The scholarly types are upset because they've been busting their butt in the classroom all their life, getting no pats on the back for it and now have to pay between 50 and 200 grand to educate themselves further and that's if they want a half-decent job. Those two groups have no business being together and they need to be separated.

There are academic scholarships as well. Not as many as athletic, but they are out there.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

I agree 100 percent, ODogg. I am tired of the sense of entitlement that exists EVERYWHERE in our country. These kids sign letters of intent, they are not stupid, they know that they will not be paid monetarily, they WILL receive free housing and a free education in exchange for their talents on the playing field to further the school's program both performance-wise and possibly financially. If a kid does not like it, or feels that it is unfair, then train for three years without going to college and enter the NFL Draft. Most of them are adults when they sign their letter of intent, so if they don't like the terms (not being monetarily compensated) then they need to be men and not sign if that's a problem. There is a lack of accountability in play here when it comes to this topic. THEY KNOW THE TERMS. I am speaking strictly with student-athletes in relation to their playing/compensation, not whether or not they get paid for being in a video game.

It sounds like you're taking the stance that athletes who play big time college football and basketball expect to get "extra benefits." If I'm wrong about that feel free to correct me.

While that may be the case with some (like maybe the Tyrelle Pryor/Tim Tebow level athletes mentioned earlier), I doubt that the majority of college football and basketball players believe that. However, why should they have to turn away something that someone wants to give them because of their abilities? This is the part that bugs me.. if a student was given $5,000 for a research project they completed, they would never turn it away. But an athlete can't receive a free meal from someone that wants to give it to them.

I think my part in this discussion is about through (unless someone makes a point that sparks my interest). I understand everyone's reasons as to why college athletes shouldn't be paid, I just disagree with them