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

[stlstudios189]

These players get free room and tution, meals, etc.. Times that by 5 years and you are looking at $100,000 in perks, and hopefully a degree that they can use for life. I still have my $25,000 in loans left for the next 14 years. Plus if they divided up the $$ evenly for this it would end up being like $50 a year. There are 80 players on 120 teams for a total of 96,000 players to pay.

[SaintsTheMetal]

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

See, the way people talk about the athletes you would assume they get basically nothing. I did not know this.

It's not much, but its supposed to be enough to pay for housing, food, transportation, etc.. and a little a spending money. Usually amounts to about $1k per month (can only speak for a couple of schools though.)

Players do get stipends along with scholarships if they are on a full-ride (which every college football and basketball player, and a couple of other sports that give full-rides, has if they have a scholarship) but I'm not exactly sure how much it is that they get. But your second point speaks more to the issue, the NCAA makes billions of dollars every year off of D1 college football and basketball players. The players should be entitled to some of that money, especially when the NCAA directly endorses those players.

The thing is to me, that if you start letting players get a cut from EA Sports, then you suddenly have players getting endorsements from Nike, Underarmor, everyone. Once these sponsorships come is the point that worries both me and I'm sure the NCAA and schools, because at that point players may start choosing schools based on money (potentially BIG money) rather than reasons that they should be chosen for. IMO a prospect would start to think why would you go to Northwestern for an excellent education when you can go to Ohio State and get endorsement deals from 4,000 different businesses that have a significant market in Ohio.

[Jr.]

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

The thing is to me, that if you start letting players get a cut from EA Sports, then you suddenly have players getting endorsements from Nike, Underarmor, everyone. Once these sponsorships come is the point that worries both me and I'm sure the NCAA and schools, because at that point players may start choosing schools based on money (potentially BIG money) rather than reasons that they should be chosen for. IMO a prospect would start to think why would you go to Northwestern for an excellent education when you can go to Ohio State and get endorsement deals from 4,000 different businesses that have a significant market in Ohio.

Yeah I see that point, but very few athletes pick the school they're going to attend for the education anyway. Honestly, the NCAA should just let boosters pay athletes whatever they want them to. It happens anyway, might as well make it legal. Then we wouldn't have to worry if Heisman Candidate A got "extra benefits" from anyone, we would just know that he did

[supermanemblem]

it's actually 9,600 which the ncaa could cover with their multi billions.

[seawolves9]

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

Yeah I see that point, but very few athletes pick the school they're going to attend for the education anyway. Honestly, the NCAA should just let boosters pay athletes whatever they want them to. It happens anyway, might as well make it legal. Then we wouldn't have to worry if Heisman Candidate A got "extra benefits" from anyone, we would just know that he did

No, actually they shouldn't do this. That'd be a terrible idea.

[Jr.]

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

No, actually they shouldn't do this. That'd be a terrible idea.

Why not? It happens a ton already, why not let boosters give athletes whatever they want to? At least then the NCAA doesn't have to waste time and money worrying about stupid compliance issues (like spending 5 years to penalize USC and players that had nothing to do with Reggie Bush's family taking money that he rightfully deserved if someone wanted to give it to him)

[ODogg]

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

Because then it's no longer college athletics, it's pro sports and we already have that. That's why not.

Oh and likeness of players is not protected from use either...if it was you couldn't go buy that Gameday guide for $10 with Terrell Pryor's face on the cover of it.

[Jr.]

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

Because then it's no longer college athletics, it's pro sports and we already have that. That's why not.

Oh and likeness of players is not protected from use either...if it was you couldn't go buy that Gameday guide for $10 with Terrell Pryor's face on the cover of it.

So it's college athletics now because they're getting paid under the table? Big time football and basketball aren't college athletics anymore. If they were then there wouldn't be players leaving early to be drafted, or special exemptions to allow athletes to attend colleges where they don't have to meet the same entry standards as the non-athlete student body. I'm not sure what "Gameday guide" you're talking about. Gameday guides at stadiums are made by the schools, hence the player signing a waiver to allow their school and the NCAA to promote them. If you mean preseason mags or something like that, then I'm pretty sure they have an agreement with the NCAA to use current players' likenesses but I could be wrong about that.

It would be great if college athletics were truly amateur sports like they were in the 60s and 70s, but I don't think it's ever going to go back to that unless the superconferences that are coming separate themselves from the NCAA and start their own minor league-type system for the NFL. There's no way to stop boosters, agents, and their runners from paying athletes that are willing to take the money, so why not make it legal?

[ODogg]

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

It's college athletics because there are rules that they aren't supposed to get money under the table. No one should be getting paid period. Your argument that we should just allow it because it sometimes happens anyways is not a very good one, that same argument could be applied for any law in the history of mankind.

[Jr.]

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

It's college athletics because there are rules that they aren't supposed to get money under the table. No one should be getting paid period. Your argument that we should just allow it because it sometimes happens anyways is not a very good one, that same argument could be applied for any law in the history of mankind.

Yes it could be applied to any law, but laws keep people from doing things that hurt others... these are asinine rules that allow the NCAA and the schools to keep all of the money they make off of their athletes with very little compensation in comparison. Why can't AJ Green sell his jersey if someone wants to buy it from him? Why couldn't Reggie Bush take money that people wanted to give him? It's not like these guys are better on the field because they made some money off of their talents.

[ODogg]

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

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.]

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

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]

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

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.]

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

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]

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

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.