DebAte-T-Q: Should College Football Players Be Paid
by Matt Daddy on Apr 11, 2011 10:00 AM PDT
in Opinion
Email
PrintOk, let's start this off with some simple context. Right now the NCAA is mired in some pretty decent sized scandals with what has gone on at Ohio State, the allegations against players at Auburn and for some the implications that maybe top Texas athletes were steered towards Oregon via scouting services turned street agents.
At the root of all this controversy is the question of whether NCAA athletes are supposed to be amateurs. College football doesn't have a minor league system like hockey or baseball where players can go and get paid smaller amounts to hone their craft and make a living until the major professional associations are ready to call them up for the big payday. Instead they're required to spend 3 years out of high school, sacrificing their bodies, dedicating their time and forsaking a tremendous amount of money until the all seeing all mighty NCAA declares they are fit for employment.
Obviously not every athlete that decides to play college football comes from the means necessary to make these sacrifices and so some turn to other less NCAA sanctioned ways of getting by. Does this mean they're bad people and don't deserve to represent our University or does it mean the system is flawed? Let's discuss.
Matt: Personally, I believe that NCAA players are already being paid. The NCAA has set forth what it believes are acceptable forms of payment for players (i.e. tuition, room and board, stipends, etc). I see little to no reason why someone that has chosen to go to school and represent a University should be given more than they already have. On top of that, many institutions are running athletic budgets deep in the red and paying players would even more severely hamper school and state budgets. Finally, if we're already having problems policing the current "pay out" schedule, who's to say that suddenly opening the wallets of boosters, AD's and Universities to pay athletes wouldn't cause even more rampant indiscretion?
Jared: I think the first thing that needs to be established is, are college players (not just football but basketball) receiving adequate payment in terms of tuition, stipend, etc. And the answer to that is a resounding no. There are a lot of straw men that get brought up in this discussion, but this is really what it comes down to. Is the current situation fair to student-athletes, and does it foster the type of environment that we want. I don't think it comes close, mostly due to the total failure of the NCAA.
While players receive tuition and stipends for room, board, and books, that's essentially it. Living costs a lot more than that. We shouldn't be in a situation where athletes are struggling to pay for gas to get to and from the athletic facilities. While this wasn't a problem in the past, it's quickly becoming a problem with the strain that is being put on college athletics. It's no longer enough for players to work in the fall and spring. Being a college football or college basketball player is a full-time job in and of itself. These players don't get a summer, they don't get a winter. On the whole, they can't keep jobs, and even if they could, it'd come under NCAA scrutiny. Many players are dependent on family members to help them out. This is fine for some players, but is not an option for others.
These problems are compounded by some mind-numbingly stupid NCAA regulations. For student-athletes, many things that happen all the time for normal students are not allowed (see the Dawyne Jarrett situation). They can't receive anything for free without fear of the NCAA coming down on them. The tOSU athletes committed NCAA violations for selling and trading their own private property. In my opinion, these types of actions should not be illegal (regulated, yes, but not outlawed).
The NCAA's quest to limit so much athlete behavior has almost ensured that the rules will be broken. The NCAA has created a system that unfairly constrains student-athletes, and furthers the gap between them and typical college students. The system of rules and enforcement in place make no sense.
In your opening you stated, "The NCAA has set forth what it believes are acceptable forms of payment for players." The key here is, "what it believes." The NCAA is an incompetent and corrupt mess. It has failed to uphold the interest of the student-athletes, and the current system should be changed.
Matt: Let's try and keep this conversation strictly to football. There aren't nearly enough college basketball teams breaking even financially to even consider including them at this point. Plus, they have an alternative to go play overseas for a year and then enter the NBA, unlike college football players. I don't want to make this argument too hard on ya.
You say adequate like it's not a relative term. Many people go through 4 years of education taking out loans, living on top roman and 7-11 nacho cheese sauce, and deciding to live near campus because they and their families can't afford the expenses of having a car. Let's not forget that most of these players never have to buy a single pair of shoes, pants, shirts, hats or other clothing item given the lucrative shoe contracts programs have. Ask anyone that is still paying off student loans if they would have liked to been given free tuition, books, computers and other supplies, housing, food, clothes while they went through school. See if "adequate" still holds water.
Sure, excess living costs more than that, but that's not what they are being paid to do. I think a lot of people get caught up in the discrepancies between what these athletes bring in for the institution, what the next level (even mediocre) players make, and what NCAA players are currently receiving and think, "my goodness these guys are getting screwed." But that's ignoring the bigger picture.
NCAA football is the bread winner of the athletic family. So many programs are funded by the excess profits brought in by football. If we were to truly give football players what they are worth to the school, we'd have to sacrifice women's basketball, track and field, golf, baseball, lacrosse, etc. And not just at Oregon, but across the nation. You'd have about 3 scholarship sports and everything else would be at the club, walk-on, level. Hell, every school would end up being Cal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending NCAA regulations by any stretch of the imagination. But if we start allowing players to sell items, work beyond a certain level, and make more money, the "mind-numbing" violations would only escalate. What do you mean I can only sell my jersey for $85? You're telling me I'm suspended for selling it for $86? Or because the guy included shipping and handling? Or because I got paid $50/hour to wash cars at the local used car dealer? Where does it stop?
The violations, the amount of regulation, and the strain on coaches, recruiting, and current players would get even worse. We're not talking about whether they should be given anything or not. We're only talking about to what degree. I've yet to be convinced that what football players are currently receiving is not "adequate."
Jared: You still haven't addressed the basic question. Should our football players have to beg for gas and/or pizza money? Yeah, our football players can survive and they are being "adequately" taken care of. They will get through college with little to no debt. But that's not really what we're talking about. They have few options for what they can do while at college. Other students can choose to get a second job to get through college (most don't). But football players do not even have that option available to them because it's a "violation."
We're not talking about what football players are "worth," because if we were going to give them what they were worth, LaMichael James would be making thousands (maybe millions) of dollars. We're talking about what is just and reasonable to achieve a collegiate education.
The fact is that the current NCAA rules do not foster that. They foster bitterness and resent at a system that exploits student-athletes who can't even live a normal life. The goal of the NCAA should be to foster an environment that helps the student-athlete live the most normal life possible, and encourages the student aspect of that. And that's not happening. What are our players supposed to do when they see other students going out to eat, or live in a better off-campus apartment, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their situation no matter what they do? Oregon and other schools have done all they can to better student-athlete life, and that's a great competitive advantage. But all that does is further alienate the athletes from the normal college life.
I recently read the "What It Means To Be A Duck," and one of the aspects that stood out to me was Ahmad Rashād talking about how being an athlete at Oregon was not just about being an athlete, but about growing as a person and being a part of the entire student body. I don't believe that this is possible anymore. Athletics are a business, and NCAA rules have done everything in their power to separate student-athletes from the rest of the student population.
And as for strains becoming greater on the the coaches. Those poor coaches. How dare they have to worry about the player's well-being when they're making millions of dollars per year.
Matt: Beg for pizza or gas money... who's creating the straw man now? So you're arguing that student athletes have it too hard financially and that is alienating them from the rest of the student population? Do you even remember what college life was about? You obviously never had the privilege of enjoying the delicacy that is a ketchup sandwich.
I'm not against making the rules easier to follow. I think it's ridiculous that if someone bums a ride across campus they're getting something for free in the eyes of the NCAA. I think the entire NCAA rule book is a complete mess and needs to be addressed. But that doesn't change the fact that college football players are compensated very well at this point in time.
Adding extra compensation would only further alienate them from the general student population. I'm glad that athletes have to find enjoyment in the stay at home and play video game night instead of hitting the clubs and making it rain. I'm glad student athletes have to think about how difficult it is to be a college student and how most other students don't have the tutors, facilities, and extra benefits that they have and how they shouldn't take it for granted. This isn't exclusive to Oregon. Almost every D1 FBS programs has benefits that the average student would die to be able to take advantage of.
As for the coaches, I agree, I want them concerned with the well being of their players. I don't want them buried in a mountain of compliance paperwork, verification forms and submitting correspondence records. I want them making sure their players are attending class, being students and then game planning for how to beat the next team. Adding more benefits to athletes means adding more regulations which means more attention by the coaches so that their millions are not going to disappear because one of their players didn't understand the new limits to their benefits and now they're facing NCAA sanctions.
Jared: You keep stating that football players are compensated very well. I don't agree. They are compensated in some ways, but this does not mean they are compensated well. The NCAA is forcing some (not all) of their student-athletes to live at basically poverty level. If this was simply a baseline of compensation, that would be one thing. But the important distinction here is that normal students can take action to better their situation. The NCAA doesn't allow student-athletes to make this choice. They can't hold jobs. They can't accept gifts from their friend's parents. They are forced to live in a situation that is not always to the benefit of the student or the University.
I'm not advocating paying players extravagant amounts, but they should have stipends that allows all student-athletes (not just those that come from good backgrounds) the ability to live as normal a life as possible. We're not talking about "making it rain." We're talking about a few hundred dollars per month. I think that we need to a system that conforms to the needs of each student. The NCAA has tried to create a one-size-fits-all rulebook, when that simply is not realistic based on the diversity of backgrounds for their student athletes.
As far as regulation goes, you've brought up a lot of very unrealistic scenarios. Universities have compliance departments for a reason, and they would simply have to adjust to different regulations. Also, adding benefits does not mean adding regulations. It means changing regulation. The NCAA currently regulates everything anyway, so changing how these things are handled will not add any regulation, and if done right, could make enforcement easier.
We currently have an unjust system that is totally unenforceable. The NCAA has failed it's objective to serve the student-athlete, and it's lack of ability to enforce has simply brought more regulations that exploits the student-athlete.
...
There you have it. What side do you fall on? Should NCAA athletes get paid more, or do you think they're already fairly compensated? Is the NCAA an incompetent mess? How much and how would you add extra benefits for student athletes? Feel free to finish this discussion in the comments.
257 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My thoughts
All students are living at poverty level. I’m a grad student, being paid a stipend for my research, and I’m at poverty level. I don’t have time for another job. For all intensive purposes, my situation is similar to a football player’s in that my time commitment outside of just going to class prevents me from holding a job. College football is an amateur sport, and it should be treated as such. I will agree with Jared in that they should be given a stipend given the amount of time they have to devote to their profession. It’s like holding an internship during the school year.
The issue is who’s getting paid. The problem is that the money isn’t going to the schools and programs. It’s going to people like the Fiesta Bowl CEO and other executives. It’s polluted the sport.
I also think rules like the NFL preventing young players from getting drafted or like the NBA’s one and done rule are ridiculous. In any other profession, or even baseball, I can start working at 16 or so. I can enter the professional ranks. That’s where the NCAA is trying to profit from young talent and where the system has gone wrong. If a kid wants to support themselves and their family at 18, they should be allowed to do so. It’s a tremendous double standard to essentially force a player to play college football and then not compensate him for doing so, all while you are profiting at his expense. It’s essentially indentured servitude.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
But that's their choice
Many professions have licensing and other requirements to enter into their field where the applicant doesn’t get paid. I worked a job and studied full time to get my licenses and wasn’t paid a dime by my employer until I passed. But because it was the profession I wanted, I chose to do so.
Kids go to college and play football for one of two reasons. 1. They think they have a chance to play at the next level and want to apply to to do so. The NFL’s current application process consists of 3 years of “under-study” work at the NCAA level (or equivalent). or, 2. They’re there to get an education and college football is helping foot the bill so they can graduate better than 90% of the general public with no debt and with a ton of other benefits along the way.
Neither of those situations sound like indentured servitude. They sound like personal choices.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
The other issue..
Matt, if this could be a discussion in a vacuum then I think all of your points are spot on. I too “worked” through college (UO catering what evs) but on an hourly basis compared to a full ride out of state scholarship it’s not even close in terms of income. So yes, SA’s are paid generously when you also factor in the academic supports (have you seen the cube?) they get in addition to the free ride.
However, as I went off on a few posts ago this isn’t a vacuum but a multi billion $ industry with execs making over 1/2 mill a year on the backs of state funded (tax payer supported) institutions and their student body. When VT has to pay over $400k to play in a bowl while it’s exec makes $500k there seems something very wrong with that.
So, what happens here is that I think these two different issues become linked because just like in the EA sports lawsuit, which I don’t totally agree with, EA makes $ on a students effort on the field. So ESPN and BC$ make shitastics amounts of cash on these same students, which for me muddies the water about actual compensation.
As I worked for catering and got paid by UO I felt it was fair, but if I found out that another company made $1000s off of me doing that same job then I would wonder why I should see no part of that profit.
Hoover: They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!
There are lots of multi-billion dollar industries
and yep, CEO’s and execs are making lots of money off them. That doesn’t change the fact that I believe that NCAA athletes are fairly compensated right now. I honestly don’t care what Jim Nantz, or the Orange Bowl CEO makes off the back of college football players.
To me the issue is “are NCAA athletes fairly compensated?”
I think when you look at athletic department budgets, as well as what other inter like occupations pay for a kid straight out of high school, you’ll see that what college football players receive is far and away greater. Look at Oregon’s football team. There were probably 5-8 NFL caliber players on that team last year? And 85 kids got a scholarship. That means some 78 kids, are paying nothing for school, getting free room and board, clothes, tutors, etc as an inter for an occupation they will probably never join. Think about that. If I was a CEO of a company and I had to hire 85 interns give them all of that and then most likely get to keep, 5? I’d be pissed at those losses.
I think the players are making out.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
most of the NCAA athletes
are more than fairly compensated. The issue with football players (esp. at big schools, which is where the $$$ is made) is whether they’re being fairly compensated, given both the revenue they generate and the health risks they incur (as well as the fact that their educations are frequently shortchanged).
I don’t think many people are arguing that swimmers at Eastern Idaho aren’t making enough. It’s whether football players at Oklahoma are making enough.
I think a lot of people get caught up in the discrepancies between what these athletes bring in for the institution, what the next level (even mediocre) players make, and what NCAA players are currently receiving and think, “my goodness these guys are getting screwed.”
There will probably be 70 players on tOSU (the nation’s biggest athletic dept) that don’t play pro ball. Are we going to look at the 15 that got shortchanged a year or two or the 70 that got more than fairly compensated for 4 years. I’m not even going to talk about what swimmers and lacrosse and track and field athletes get.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
the 70 who don't go pro
also get shortchanged. in many ways, more than the other 15. You can argue the best 15 created more value than the other 70, but all of them created substantial value.
Moreover, the other 15 at least end up with a pro contract of some sort. The 70 who don’t end up with very little, especially the ones who never got much of an education while at OSU (and most especially the ones who never graduate).
They all have the opportunity to get an education
if they choose not to, the responsibility lies with them. I’m not going to feel bad if they didn’t take advantage of that.
Now, some coaches (cough Neuheisel cough) frown on devoting too much time on education. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
it's more than just one guy
a LOT of coaches nationwide do this (probably all non-Vandy SEC programs for starters, though maybe 1 or 2 don’t). when you’ve got situation where the scholarship isn’t automatically renewed and where the coaches can dump you for any reason they like, it is really difficult to get a decent, much less good, education out of the deal.
If we were talking about very mature, educated 18+ year olds I wouldn’t have that much of an issue, but we’re frequently talking about poor, under-educated kids who don’t have the background to fully understand their options and/or to resist the influence of a coaching staff that doesn’t have their best interests at heart.
by MrPacTen on Apr 11, 2011 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know its more than just one guy
its a major problem. I’d prefer to deal with the cause and not the symptom, though. Instead of saying education isn’t important and just trying to pay them off, lets actually get them an education.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
lets actually get them an education.
I don’t think this is a realistic the way that NCAA regulations are set up.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
i don't have a big problem
with that approach. it’s another reasonable way of handling the issue. taking education truly seriously would almost certainly require:
long-term health insurance (still needed given health issues)
guaranteed renewable scholarships (and maybe guaranteed extra years of scholarship after eligibility is done)
mandatory freshman redshirts (MAYBE they could skip this)
substantial penalties for programs that don’t graduate enough players, and perhaps substantial penalties for programs that undermine their players’ educations
and probably more besides. If there was a serious push to go down this route I could support it. It’s a reasonable alternative to paying players (and in many ways one I’d prefer). But I think there’s even less push to go down this route than to simply pay players and be done with it.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening at all. There’s simply too much money at stake for the NCAA to go down this path.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I could get behind mandatory frosh redshirts.
I like the idea of long- or middle-term health insurance, given what the players put their bodies through. I think that’s a form of compensation you could justify. If you could afford it. Good luck there.
I’m not sure how I feel about guaranteed four- or five-year rides. Some kids come into school and just don’t want to do the work. You going to carry them regardless? Is that a risk you have to take? I don’t know. I do know SMU wishes they hadn’t cut that one kid loose back in the day.
Penalties for low grad rates? Slippery slope there — a school can say it was taking high risk kids, disadvantaged kids with poor HS programs, it tried, it really tried to get them graduated but they were just dumb as rocks difficult cases, so why punish them for taking the high risk kids while schools like Stanford skate along on their rep?
There’s no way to “simply pay players and be done with it.”
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
There’s no way to "simply pay players and be done with it."
I don’t think anyone’s saying this.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I really don’t think that this can be understated. Treating players in this manner in regards to education has been the norm for decades in college football, and with the money that is at stake, won’t be changing anytime soon.
Even for someone like Mike Riley, who most agree is above board, Quizz stated he didn’t learn anything at OSU, just football. Obviously, Quizz is just one player, and one that made the NFL, but this is how it usually goes, whether or not the player will have a shot at making the NFL.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I put that squarely on Quizz
He had a chance to earn a degree, even a crappy one. But he chose not to. (And he hasn’t made the NFL yet either). A big risk in my opinion.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
You can put it on Quizz, or you can put that on the culture of NCAA football.
Quizz is the norm in college football, which should tell you something about where college football is at.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Quizz is not the norm.
Quizz was a player biding his time until he got to play in the NFL. There are 80 + player on that team alone that are much closer to the norm, and I guarantee that the whole “I didn’t learn anything” mentality is the exception and not the rule.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
by Matt Daddy on Apr 11, 2011 4:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
these guys
beg to differ (apparently they do one almost every year, though I haven’t seen their latest). 57% grad rate at Oregon St, 67% grad rate 1-A-wide.
That suggests that while Quizz isn’t “the norm”, neither is he “the exception.” Plenty of people graduate, and plenty of people do not. And of those who graduate, at least some didn’t get much of an education in the process, though it’s much harder to get #’s on those, so who knows what the percentages are.
Interesting
Football players at Oregon: 49% graduation rate. Ouch.
But, when compared to a 65% general student body graduation rate the difference of 16% is actually pretty good (BYU is 15% difference).
Then look at Basketball at 73% graduation rate. Better than the student body average. All student athletes combined are at 74%, which is better than the student body average.
So, it would seem that student athletes in general actually have better success than the student body average.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
A lot of that can be ascribed to having scholarships. I knew plenty of people who didn’t finish because the cost got in the way, so they transferred to cheaper joints like PSU, or took time off to work and just kept on working.
But that statistic wouldn’t be helpful to those with an axe to grind.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Does any department outside of Athletics even offer full scholarships? I honestly don’t know, but I’ve never heard of one at U of O.
They aren’t offered by departments, but the UO has several scholarship programs administered by the financial aid or admissions offices. And there are many other agencies that offer merit-based assistance.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
A lot of that basketball success goes to Ernie Kent.
One of his biggest strengths as a coach is his value of education.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
Liars figure and figures lie
How many of those athletes would have gone to college had they not gotten a full ride from OSU? What’s the overall value of a general student population education? What about a general student that doesn’t apply themselves? Do they get “much of an education?”
And I was talking about the mentality of “I didn’t learn anything.” For every Quizz type story I hear 5 players talking about graduating early, being the first in their family to get a degree, working on internships while still in school and making the most of their education opportunity.
I think the whole notion that football players are getting a second rate education is disrespectful to hundreds and thousands of players that work their asses off, take extra case loads in the summer so they can have lighter ones during the season, graduating early and the professors that do everything they can to make sure these kids get a great education.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
it's not surprising
that you don’t hear many Quizz-like stories. The guys who go through college as a FB player w/o learning anything tend not to publicly announce that sort of thing. Kind of like the players who go through college getting $500 handshakes tend not to publicly announce that sort of thing.
(as well as the fact that their educations are frequently shortchanged)
This is a huge point that is overlooked. We can talk all we want about the education, but when schools are pressuring kids into ignoring their students because of the desire to win, and make more money, this is a huge problem. And this isn’t even about the players that are going pro. This type of pressure happens to all players on the team, whether or not they have the ability to go pro.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
agree with this
but we need to treat the cause, not the symptom
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Unless you're self employed (and even then, most likely)
you are always making money for other people.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
Y'all
both make great points but i just don’t think it is feasibly possible to pay college players. My state (Texas) is currently freezing all State issued financial aid to college students because we are so blindly in debt.
Yes, probably one percent of college athletes actually generate a profit for their school, but you could never regulate it, and you would end up paying everyone. it would almost definitely sink an athletic department if they had to give every scholarship athlete a COLA stipend.
I agree that NCAA Div 1 AQ football players deserve a little coin for what they bring to the school. but what you deserve and what you get is rarely equal. plus consider what life for most college students is anyway. mounds of debt, and still in bad conditions.
I just do not think there is anyway to make it work
Fresh since 1822
Matt is most correct
I agree with most of what everyone has said, but in the end I have to agree with Matt that the student athletes are fairly compensated, and ultimately make out better than most because they can earn a degree with no debt.
A scholarship athlete has their tuition and living expenses are paid for, if barely. But that puts them on par with most other students. As noted, many students rely on loans and other financial aid along with part time jobs during the school year or full time jobs during the summer just to pay for the things that athletes are given (tuition, room, board, books, and stipend).
So, in the end, both work to earn the same thing, but athlete’s get the edge because they can graduate with a degree and no debt (which is a huge, huge benefit).
College life is about being poor and not really caring. Scraping enough change together to buy a coffee, beer, or whatever. Riding my bike because I couldn’t put gas in my car. I didn’t really car that much either.
That doesn’t mean the NCAA is effed, because it is.
I don’t know how this plays into it all, but the fact that there is no minor league football does add a dimension of forced college service. A lot of football players simply aren’t cut out for college. Many have to be spoon fed their education just to remain eligible. That’s fine. Not everyone wants to go to college, or has the aptitude. In most other countries they could go into a vocational track at the high school level to learn a career.
But, if you want to play football at a progressively higher level and aspire to play in the NFL, you have no choice but to attend a college.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
Good point
that some players wouldn’t even be admitted to college.
by El Duckerino on Apr 11, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Title 9
Good arguments on both sides but I think baseb3383 hit it on the head, “The problem is that the money isn’t going to the schools and programs”. I think it’s also important to note the possible title 9 implications and (I believe but am not sure) that all athletes would have to be compensated at the same rate regardless of whether their sport actually makes any money.
The BIG ISSUE is. With all the money that college football generates, how can a team lose money by participating in the NC or any other bowl? The NCAA and the BCS are complete and utter horseshit! On the same level of over-draft fees, adjustable rate mortgages and pay day loans. Until that gets straightened out, it really doesn’t matter if players should be paid more because there really isn’t any money from the schools stand point. The NCAA has sold out the schools and the athletes, that’s the real problem.
title 9
is somewhat arguable. Would definitely be a very big deal at small schools who don’t have large #‘s of womens’ sports, but for larger athletic departments, I’m pretty sure that providing “enough” opportunities for women athletes (whatever “enough” actually means) will get you by Title 9.
Realistically, paying football players could create a gap between the programs with enough of a budget to fund enough women’s sports to be title 9 compliant while paying football players and those that aren’t big enough to do that. That’s not an outcome I have much of a problem with.
Interesting
I thought Title 9 was a bit more strict in it’s interpretation but as I said I wasn’t sure.
I agree that I wouldn’t have much of a problem seeing the Div 1 ranks trimmed a bit either. Honestly it might be a good thing.
by El Duckerino on Apr 11, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
HEW’s 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the “three-part test” for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.18
1. Prong one – Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two – Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3. Prong three – Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
I would THINK (and I could be wrong, I’m no lawyer) that you could make a case for prong 1 or 3 (especially 1) as long as you’re providing “enough” participation opportunities for women athletes.
Prong 1
I think you’re right that prong one is probably where they would be ok as it seems to be just based on percentage of enrolled students that are athletes. I think 3 might be a bit tricky as “full and effective accommodation” seems pretty vague and could be interpreted to include stipends and the like.
by El Duckerino on Apr 11, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
should college players be paid
I feel the players should have the rights to their performances after they finish playing so they could get revenue from video games and not the ncaa. What if they received $1000 a month in a account similar to a 401 k and received it when they graduated for the university?
IMO the really big issue
is the enormous health risks that come with playing football. Players get healthcare while in college, but when they’re out it’s their own problem again. There are enough studies out there about the long-term damage to NFL players (including brain damage) that it’s obvious that CFB has similar issues (though probably lesser given that NFL players get an extra x number of years in FB after college, while college-only guys don’t).
The more we know about the health risks that come with football the more absurd it becomes to give a player a scholarship and pretend that’s enough, especially when there are many places where many players won’t graduate, and many of those that do graduate won’t have gotten much of an education while there.
You're assuming
the NCAA cares about athletes…
by El Duckerino on Apr 11, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
no
I’m just talking about the fairness side. I have no idea what the NCAA is thinking. And it’s such an insane organization I don’t really want to know either.
no kidding
How is the NCAA so terrible at their job? Maybe the NCAA should try to make some terrible feel-good type commercials to change my mind, oh wait…..
I do think that some sort of health plan might be better than giving the guys a few extra bucks, especially for sports like football.
“Most of us will go pro in something other than sports, and some of us will have debilitating life long injuries.”
by El Duckerino on Apr 11, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that's the missing argument.
These kids are meant to push their bodies to the brink, and then there is very little for most of them after it’s all over. I’d hate to see statistic on obesity, or premature deaths for offensive and defensive linemen that played college ball and didn’t make it to the pros. I wish there was some sort of healthcare set up for all of them for after college. Then again, I wish the whole healthcare industry was different… but that’s for a different debate.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Related article from SI, and it's Duck centered.
About transitioning Linemen away from football shape once they’re done, to lead healthy normal lives.
It's an assumed risk.
I would imagine more people are killed skiing than playing football. People take risks to play the sports they enjoy.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
I'm keying in on Matt Daddy's point that paying players would further alienate them from the school at large.
The furor over the Jacqua Center being exclusive would be nothing compared to the uproar over some students getting paid. Furthermore, I think paying athletes a salary, or a salary-like stipend, detracts from the idea that THEY ARE AT SCHOOL TO GET AN EDUCATION.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
by Takimoto on Apr 11, 2011 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I guess it depends on the level they were compensated. The system that is in place now perversely encourages this type of separation, because athletic departments have to try and compensate student-athletes within the rules. Increasing player stipends wouldn’t help under this current situation, but may make a difference in the long run.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I have a couple of problems with the pay concept
1. Where’s the money coming from? Say it’s $300/mo during football season (5 months) plus spring practice (1 month). 6 mos x 300 = $1800 per year per player, x 85 scholarships = $153,000 per year per school. Yeah, Uncle Phil could afford it, but could Wazzu pull it off without yet another sponsorship? There’s no way to do this without adding yet another layer of commercialism over what’s already a pretty over-the-top sponsorfest. I don’t want to see soccer-style logos all over the jerseys. One thing’s for sure — in this climate, the payments aren’t going to just come out of the athletic department budgets, at least not at the public schools. And especially not at the FCS level.
2. Does everyone get the same payment? If so, why, and why wouldn’t that foster a sense of resentment from the players who were “worth more to the team”? Would you pay LMJ the same as Remene Alston? If not, who decides the relative value of the players? Coaches? The media? Boosters? Yeah, that would work out real well.
3. Would the BCS schools figure out a way to get their payers paid at a higher rate than the non-AQs, or FCS teams? Of course they would.
CFB is bad enough now with the stratification between AQ and non-AQ. I don’t see any scenario where paying players wouldn’t make it worse.
A full-ride scholly is payment enough. If it’s not, that’s an individual issue, not a systemic defect.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
135k per year
really isn’t that much. What is Wazzu (your example) paying their coaching staff? How much could they save by cutting their compliance dept a bit (which seems reasonable if you’re paying players over the table instead of under it).
I’d agree that it’d create more separation b/w AQ and non-AQ, but I think we’re long overdue for a full separation of the AQ’s and non-AQ’s. A 60 or so program division (or even better, a group totally outside the NCAA, at least in football) would make sense in many ways, especially if you’re interested in a playoff (which is MUCH more workable w/ ~ 60 programs than with 120 and growing).
if you think this concept would eliminate the need for a compliance department
you’re more naive than I thought.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
there would still be a need
but they could probably make it a bit smaller, maybe by an employee or two. Fire just one 40k employee and you’ve paid for at least a quarter of the impact. And again, that’s just one possibility.
Another one: there’s plenty of fat that could be cut just in coaching staff alone; if you cut head coach salary 80k and take another 55k from the total assistants’ salary (neither would be a big change), that’s 135k by itself. And before you say “Chip Kelly should never take a pay cut”, this is a long-term arrangement. Just take 80k from his next contract (well less than the raise he’ll get) and that does it, and you’re just filling the gap for a few years.
Overall, pretty much every BCS athletic department makes enough that they could drop even $1M per year on player stipends/benefits and it wouldn’t be a killer given a couple of years to prepare their budgets.
I would think paying players would make a larger compliance department necessary. The rule about pay goes from “No money, ever” to “No Money except when we give you just this amount”. The nuance would cause more violations than forbidding all money.
The nuance would cause more violations than forbidding all money.
Uhhh, how?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
perhaps misphrased
But it would seem to me to create a morally gray area in regards to extra benefits.
Now I believe this would cause more violations due to the expectation of profit by the players. If you have ever worked with someone who feels they are underpaid then you see them slack off, steal from work and complain. When you have an all star running back that is putting up heisman winning numbers and is getting paid the same as a backup TE you have the add risk of the star feeling cheated and he may go out and make up for the shortage elsewhere (tatoos, cars etc). This would not be the fault of the payments but once you change the mentality from education oriented to pay oriented the psychology will change as well. I think this exists today but since the structure is set that no one (players) should profit from football in college you dont have the expectation to be compensated up to your ability.
People are great at rationalizing their immoral decisions so if you say never accept money and you will not be paid it makes it harder to rationalize taking add. benefits than if the rule is you can only profit from us and we will pay you what we feel you are worth (NCAA, not school).
I think paying the players will change the game in more ways than anyone has considered.
The arguments that you have just put forward seem to be arguments FOR the playing of players. If you think college players will be bitter for being underpaid if they’re actually getting any money, how bitter do you think they are now?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
disagree
with players getting more money, there would be less demand for additional money. there will still be cheaters of course, but I would presume it would become less of an issue. I could be wrong, but that seems the likely outcome to me.
I mostly agree, though I just don’t see it having an impact. NCAA regulations require hefty compliance departments already, and they would likely still require hefty compliance departments. They would simply be regulating the areas they watch differently.
The only difference would be that instead of outlawing various benefits altogether, they would have more knowledge of what would be received. This likely wouldn’t be any more or less difficult, it would just require re-education of compliance, and then, of student-athletes. This is a tiny price to pay if this situation would improve.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
How would the situation improve?
The players are already being compensated for their efforts. THEY GET A DAMN SCHOLARSHIP. Last time I looked, at some schools, that’s well over $20k/year that they ARE NOT HAVING TO SPEND ON THEIR EDUCATION.
I worked two jobs when I was going through school. I would have traded one or both of them for a scholarship IN A HEARTBEAT. A few hundred a month wouldn’t have made much of a difference (OK, back when I was in school, it would have been more like 50 bucks, but you get the idea.).
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
But what if the conditions of your scholarship was that you couldn’t receive money from anyone else, had to maintain a minimum grade, risk major and/or long term injury, and had to work hard 40 hours a week?
$18k is about the annual income of someone working full time at minimum wage.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
a full ride for an out of state athlete is worth 41k per year
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
so do a lot of college students
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Compare this concept to something contemporary
Saving taxpayer dollars by cutting back on the number of USDA inspectors in meat plants, or compliance officers in the SEC (the gov’t one, not the foobaw one).
If you think that there’s no reduction in consumer safety as a result of fewer inspections taking place, or an increase in fraudulent or borderline legal transactions, I have a bridge or two to sell you.
And it’s easy for you to sit there and say you’re going to cut someone else’s salary.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
how about
comparing this to sweatshop workers getting paid very little for making sneakers, sweaters, toys, etc. Hey, they’re getting paid way more than the guys stuck working the fields in their counties, they must be getting a fantastic deal. Sure, someone else is making a huge profit off their labor, but that’s not really important.
See, we can both play the unfair analogy game.
by MrPacTen on Apr 11, 2011 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, and at the risk of being labeled politically incorrect
you can make a case that the “sweatshop workers” getting paid more than the guys in the field ARE better off than the guys in the field.
Guess what? Someone is always making a profit off the lower classes. It doesn’t matter if they’re planting rice or lacing Jordans.
Your argument — that if you give players an equal stipend for being football players, you can back off on compliance officers, because the incentive to cheat will be gone — is indefensible, or at least you haven’t successfully defended it yet. If I’m getting $300 a month, there’s still going to be the same number of outside agencies with the same $500 handshake they had last year. Now, I can get $800 while the other guys are getting $300.
Do you seriously believe I’m less likely to take the $500 in this circumstance? Or, that as a group, the players are less likely to be offered? That’s nuts.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
I have the perfect answer!!
We put all the cost of college on these things called “credit cards” where the students don’t have to pay a penny out of pocket until they are out of college and somebody else’s problem!
That way the student can live whatever lifestyle they think they deserve, as they know that their degree or the few terms at college will allow them to pay off all their debt!
See problem solved, I really don’t get what the problem was.
D. (Creative Mortgage Industries) 
Hoover: They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!
they
ARE better off than the guys in the field. But they’re still being exploited. Someone else is still making a huge profit off their labor (though this is probably less bad now than it was, say, 10 years ago).
I agree
Paying players brings too many other issues into play as Benz pointed out. Payment is based on value as well as the level of responsibility placed on the individual. To equally pay everyone is a slight against those that have worked harder and carried more of the weight of responsibility. But who makes this decision? It would also create a situation of “the rich get richer” because those schools with big-time programs or big-time donors would be able to offer the biggest paychecks to the best players. This wouldn’t hurt Oregon (at this time) but it would make it much more difficult for the TCU’s and Boise’s to become national players. At least with scholarships alone, the field is level for everyone at the start.
Also, we have to remember who it is we’re talking about. STUDENT-Athletes. They’re students first, athletes second, and there is already risk of switching the priority of the two. Do I think they need a larger stipend to make up for not being able to work? probably. But college is not about living comfortably (if you can, that’s great). It’s about getting an education. And while we all know that few of them are actually there for the education, turning them into professionals isn’t going to help the matter any. If they want to get paid for playing, then they can join a professional league. (I think perhaps the NFL’s draft eligibility rule is wrong, though I can understand it)
I also fear that adding paychecks will take the fun out of the sport. College, and college athletics, even though it is a serious matter, is still about having fun and enjoying this period of life. You routinely hear NFL players talk about how the NFL is work and sometimes the fun is lost. By paying a player based on their performance only increases the need to practice and prepare all the more and becomes more about doing well then having fun. Lets leave that to the professionals who don’t also have to attend classes.
There are a lot of issues with the NCAA, but paying players doesn’t solve it. I think Jim Coley above might have a good idea with the post-graduation payment, but it would have to be equal to all.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Apr 11, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
that’s an individual issue
Exactly. Life isn’t fair. People have to make difficult decisions all the time, students especially. While it may be a struggle financially for some SAs, they get a free education, which is worth a lot more in the long run, particularly when you take into account student loans. Its a choice they make.
And if they don't like the school and NCAA making money off them
then they don’t have to sign the documents for enrollment. In a lot of ways, when you sign an agreement to attend a school (and this applies into BYU’s life-style agreement too) then don’t sign it. (obviously, with the NFL’s 2 year rule, they are pretty much forced to go for a few years, which is why they should change that)
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Apr 11, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Blah, typing fail
In a lot of ways, when you sign an agreement to attend a school (and this applies into BYU’s life-style agreement too) then don’t sign it.
That should read: In a lot of ways, when you sign an agreement to attend a school (and this applies into BYU’s life-style agreement too) you’re giving up some of your rights to the school and saying you’ll abide by their rules and regulations. If you don’t like the stipulations (or think you’re being unfairly treated), then don’t sign it.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Apr 11, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
My take
Student athletes are compensated fairly. I think they should be able to go pro without playing any college ball. (there is no ba/bs in football studies or certificate of nfl stardom) i dont know what kind of backwards world you people live in, but how much money the people on the bottom bring in for the guys on top almost never changes what the guys on bottom get(see walmart, target, mcdonalds,etc..). They should have the chance to go pro whenever they want, but taking a scholarship is also taking the movie at home and cafateria food for dinner. if anyone really wants to look at people not getting fairly compensated, stop looking at entertainers (thats really what student athletes are) look at teachers who get crap pay and soldiers who got less then half of their shit pay last month while congress was arguing about a shut down last week.
#88
by pipgras on Apr 11, 2011 1:56 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I don't have a problem with the 3 year rule
I wouldn’t have a problem if they got rid of it or moved it to 2 years either. But the NFL has the right to put stipulations on employment (to protect their product, or whatever reason they so chose).
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Furthermore,
How many 18 year olds are ready to line up across from Ray Lewis? For health and safety there need to be some physical maturation for someone attempts to play in the NFL.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
Almost none
Thats why players go thru a hiring process and are hired. if you cant do the job you dont get hired. How many 22 year olds can line up across from ray lewis? I would guess maybe 10 more then the 18 year olds
#88
by pipgras on Apr 11, 2011 2:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The only way to pay players in a fair manner...
is to allow the NFL to essentially make the NCAA it’s minor league(s) and let NFL teams pay prospects to play college ball and develop.
Of course, the NCAA would never allow “professional” players to play, so it’s really a moot point.
"It’s great with these group of guys. There is no panic in them." --Chip Kelly, Clearly NOT talking about members of ATQ.
There aren't many NFL veterans who can line up across from Ray Lewis
But at 18 you’re just a kid. You’re not even done growing. The NFL takes its toll on grown men. I can see why they would want some age restrictions on their players.
Big difference between 18 and 22, physiologically speaking.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
They are fairly compensated
Nobody is forcing them to be there. Nobody says they have to play college ball. “But the NFL says you have to be three years removed……” NOT the NCAA’s fault. They know going in what they will be compensated. If they no longer feel that this is good enough, the school cannot compel them to stay.
As for the"broke" arguments, c’mon Jared, they’re just not compelling. Not have gas money? Whoopity doo. Lots of college kids can’t afford cars. Get a bicycle. No pizza money? They get a personal expenses stipend on top of their room and board stipend.
They know coming in what they are signing up for, and are free to leave at any time. As far as I’m concered, they have it about as well as any other college students, they just don’t have to pay any of it back when they’re done.
Or, look at it this way. A full ride for an out of state student is valued at AT LEAST 41 grand a year (27k for tuition and fees, 14 grand for housing, food, etc.) (also assuming they are not on campus for summer session, which many are). Forgive me, but I’m not feeling bad for a college student bringing in that kind of coin.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
They get a personal expenses stipend on top of their room and board stipend.
This is practically nothing, esp. considering the amount of time that it now takes to be a college football player, and the physical toll they are putting their bodies through, and they receive an education that is not at the same level of the rest of the student body.
They know coming in what they are signing up for, and are free to leave at any time.
The NCAA rules are written so that they have no power whatsoever and have little to no recourse if they are wronged by their school or coach. The coaches at Iowa pushed their kids so hard they they pissed their own muscles fibers. And what do they get from that? Besides a fun hospital stay, they get to sit out one year if they choose to transfer and if they’re lucky finish their education at another school.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Why can't an athlete receive an education
equivalent to the rest of the student body? Seems that each student has the same opportunity to pursue a degree of their choosing and athletes have access to greater academic aids, such as tutoring and the Jaqua Center.
I follow Carson York on twitter and he almost never tweets about football…it’s all about what he’s into with the journalism/marketing/advertising program.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
The pressures of college football on the whole are so great they make focusing on education incredibly difficult.
I’m proud that Chip Kelly and the entire Oregon program seem to have done a very good job stressing academics, but this is far from the norm across college football. Oregon has a large number of built-in advantages (Thanks Uncle Phil) that allow them to put such a large focus on education. Not all schools have this, and the students (not the coaches or administrators) end up getting the short end of the stick.
As with any other college student, football players get out of education what they put into it, and the simple fact is that most football players don’t have a lot of time to put into it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I hear you
I understand that Oregon may be the exception and not the rule, but I would hazard to say that for the college football player, football is their job. In that regard, it’s no different than anyone working their way through school. Its not easy. Maybe they have to sacrifice time that might otherwise be spent throwing the frisbee around (my 2nd major), or just hanging out, to hit the books.
This is not a one way street either. Scholarship athletes milk the system too. One year my brother bid on a private tour of the facilities and won. He took me along to a spring practice. Following the practice, we toured Phil’s private suite in Autzen, the locker room, sat in on a running backs meeting with Coach Campbell (shook Jonathan Stewart’s massive paw) and had lunch with the team in the cafeteria.
One thing that stuck out was a list in the locker room of all the players who had missed their tutoring sessions (for which they were charged). For the life of me I can’t remember the names, but a few were big named recruits who were not producing on the field. The scuttlebut was that they were skipping class, tutoring sessions, basically just enjoying the life of the free ride. They eventually washed out.
There a lot of kids who could never afford college who would love to be burdened with all the work football players put in just to have a chance at school.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
They eventually washed out.
This kind of undoes your argument. If they’re held to a high standard, on the field, and off it, they’re not milking anything.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It goes to your point that you get out of it
what you put into it. It also goes to show that sometimes kids who don’t have their scholarships renewed don’t deserve to have them renewed.
Ultimately, seeing how the football players “lived” for one day, made me believe that they get a good deal. Not an easy deal, but a good deal.
Shit, my dad started night school with two kids, and finished 6 years later with four kids. All while working a day job. Athletes have a lot of expenses and other things alleviated so that they can focus on school and football.
If they want to handle it, they can.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
I would be willing to bet that many students at the U of O.....
spend more time partying…..than the football players spend on football….
Not sure where this fits into this (rather heated, I must say) argument, but it seems worth pointing out.
I’m off to study. Can one of you guys paraphrase this mess in a couple hours for me. A three to four sentence synopsis would suffice.
/KTHANXBYE
by NICKPAPAGEORGIOTHEDUCK on Apr 11, 2011 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it got heated at all
Just a very good debate. It’s just that Jared’s wrong.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I follow Carson York on twitter and he almost never tweets about football
You can probably chalk that up more to CK probably bringing the hammer down on player/media/public interaction than York not wanting to talk about football.
Perhaps, but we all know the offensive linemen
are the true intellectuals on the team!
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
they receive an education that is not at the same level of the rest of the student body.
sheesh, Jared, do you even take the time to read what you’re writing? How is it that we see reports every year of Duck players graduating ahead of their classes? Are they pulling this off because the education is below-average?
You’re kind of disrespecting the players (and the institution) with a statement like that. IMO.
Don’t make excuses for the athletes.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
This isn’t just about Oregon. It’s great what’s happening at Oregon. That’s not the norm.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
they receive an education that is not at the same level of the rest of the student body.
A lot more of that is by choice than what you care to acknowledge.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
There’s a good deal of it that is by choice. But NCAA regulations reinforce this at every turn.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
You think Oregon’s the only school that has players who are actually students?
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
of course not
the issue is:
1) There are still many places where players aren’t (or a solid majority of the players aren’t) legitimate students.
Not to mention
2) Even if everyone IS a legitimate student, you still have to deal with the HUGE revenues football players create, as well as the fact that football is well-known to cause serious long-term health problems.
1) Thats a culture change issue, not a payment issue. We need to change the actions that make this so
2) We absolutely need long term insurance for players. We agree on this.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
1) It’s really, really hard to implement the sort of nationwide culture change needed to make that work. It’s MUCH easier to figure out a reasonable amount to pay players and be done with it. I honestly don’t think that the will exists to make an honest push everywhere on valuing education for players. I’d love to be wrong… but I don’t think I am.
2) You and I agree, though my impression is that there isn’t any substantial consensus on this nationwide, or likely even on this site.
How is paying players going to make them care about their education more? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I’m being paid to do something, I think I’d care about that something more.
Here’s $200 for fixing my car, now go read Hemingway.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
it won't
it’ll just give them the value that just an education won’t. They produce a LOT of revenue, it’s fair to give them more than they’re getting. I’m fine it that “more than they’re getting” comes in the form of a major, concerted effort to value education (I’d prefer it somewhat) but acknowledge it’s simpler, eaiser and likelier to work if it’s just straight cash.
Then let's not even educate them at all. Schools can just sign athletes like a pro team would, exploit them for money for 3-5 years, and leave them with nothing at the end.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
i don't really like that
education still has some value, and the whole point of college athletics is that they’re associated w/ universities.
of course, i fail to see how players would be more exploited in your strawman than the ones who get no education and no degree and are really left with noting in the end.
i fail to see how players would be more exploited
That’s the problem with your argument. You see kids that fail the system and think, they were exploited. I see kids fail and think, damn shame they didn’t take more advantage of the opportunity given them.
Now that’s not 100% true one way or the other, but I’m yet to be convinced that the exploitation is greater than the exception and no where near the rule.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
It’s really, really hard to implement the sort of nationwide culture change needed to make that work. It’s MUCH easier to figure out a reasonable amount to pay players and be done with it.
Then what difference does paying players make? Are you doing them some kind of service by this?
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
yes
paying them. If the education they get isn’t sufficient (and I think most would agree with that assessment), then that can be fixed either by making the education sufficient (really hard) or just paying them cash (much easier)
If the education they get isn’t sufficient (and I think most would agree with that assessment)
Outside of assumptions and jumped to conclusions by a few of you, I’ve yet to be convinced that those receiving a less than “sufficient” education is anything more than a willful act of the the student athlete.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
yup
I don’t see why we should pay them for NOT taking advantage of the opportunity afforded them. Nobody is saying that LaMichael James can’t get a degree in chemistry, other than the effort he wants to put into it.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Isn't Andrew Luck
a double major in Architect and something else? I’m sure that Stanford diploma with a double major on it will be less than sufficient should he decide not to play pro ball.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
yep
Josh Kaddu is majoring in economincs. Carson York in journalism. Lavasier Tuinei in business. Nobody is saying they have to major in Soc and drop out after three years. That is their choice.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
and, of course,
everyone comes in with an equal academic background and ability to participate academically. it’s only the lazy ones, not the ones who weren’t as well-educated in high school, who fail to get a valuable education. /sarcasm
I’d say they come in with equal opportunity as any other player and much higher opportunity than the general population.
I’m still wondering where my reader board listing my tutor times was in college. Oh, I didn’t have one? Damn.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
That's a really ridiculous statement.
They’re college students, for heaven’s sake. If they choose to pay attention and work diligently, they will get an education that is more than sufficient.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if everyone IS a legitimate student, you still have to deal with the HUGE revenues football players create
I don’t see the problem there. If you want college football players to get what they’re worth, then go ahead and list for me the first 5 programs you’re willing to cut because there isn’t funding for them anymore. Don’t forget to mention that NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, Hollywood, Wall Street, and every other enterprise brings in huge revenues off their working body. If you’re working a job… at all… your making profits and bringing in revenue for someone else.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
yup
non-revenue sports would be dead, because there would no longer be any way to pay for them. And if you think the taxpayers are going to subsidize it any more than they already do, you are dead wrong.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
which
athletic departments would need to cut programs? VERY few of the BCS schools would need to. Would the non-BCS schools? Probably. Do I care about them? Not really. And maybe “can they afford to pay players” becomes the next dividing line, which I’d be fine with, since I’d rather have around 60 1-A schools instead of 120 anyway.
how few departments actually break even?
WSU and OSU are hemorraging money. Cal is already cutting sports. Oregon turns a VERY modest profit that would go away if players were paid.
Thats 40% of the Pac-10, and I don’t even know the financial status of the other six.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Are you serious?
Name me the sports at Oregon that break even or make money?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
football
makes enough money to pay for most of the other sports. How would paying football players force, say, Oregon to shut down, say, track? There’s enough money made by football to pay players at least something without forcing other programs to fold. What that amount is I don’t know, but I’m sure it’s substantially above zero.
now, if you’re arguing we should pay all plaeyrs and not just revenue sport players I’d agree that would cause problems, but I’m not arguing that (and I suspect no one else here is, though I could be wrong).
Where does it stop? We’re going to pay you an extra $500/mo because we’ve realized you’re worth it.
Ummm, I’m LaMichael James BITCH. You want to go back and count those #21 jersey sales again and tell me what I’m worth?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
You haven't addressed the question.
Do you pay all the players the same amount, and if not, who decides how the money is broken down?
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Ok? Let me put it this way.
What is really driving the need to pay players? Is is based on the fact that you believe they’re not getting what they’re worth? If so, then you have not established how to adequately determine what individual players are worth and how they should be adequately compensated.
Is it a belief that their education is worthless and so in reality they aren’t receiving anything of value? If so, then you’ve failed to establish that a full ride scholarship is worthless.
Go ahead and feel free to give the premise of your argument, because as of right now I feel like I’m arguing against intuition and assumption.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I'm sorry, but this isn't an argument.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
No it isn't.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
I think
there are a few things driving my perspective:
1) College football, especially at the highest level, generates HUGE amounts of revenue. The football players see very little of this. EVEN IF you believe that the players are getting the full value of their scholarship, that’s still a very small % of the revenue they generate.
Most of the revenue they generate goes to subsidize:
coaches’ salaries
athletic department / NCAA bureaucracy
smaller schools’ football programs
non-revenue sports / championships, both at their own schools and at smaller schools
I consider that by itself to be very unfair.
2) There are serious long-term health issues associated with playing football. That the players absorb this risk in a business that generates a lot of revenue while still not getting very much compensation for it strikes me as drastically unfair.
3) The education that players receive is frequently not worth anything near the value of the scholarship. The simple fact that they’re working a near full time job for over half the school year (football season + spring practices) makes that true in and of itself.
And then on top of that there are many places where the program:
directly discourages players from getting much of an education, since it conflicts with football responsibilities
intentionally recruits players who aren’t academically qualified to take advantage of an education even if they wanted to
Which makes it even more of an unfair bargain, IMO.
1. Who cares? Writers make a very small percentage of the revenues created in Hollywood. Most of that money goes to the production company, the star actors, the director and the distribution companies. It’s the way it works. If I don’t like it, I’m not forced to work there. No one is holding a gun to any player’s head and making them play college football. I think you’re also not counting the tremendous number of athletes that get scholarships off football revenue that DON’T play football. Sure you could pass a little extra on to the football players, but then you’re still generating huge revenues and football players are still only seeing little of that.
2. I don’t disagree. I don’t think anyone would disagree with providing substantially more health care for athletes. Personally I think cutting them a check instead of actually putting health care in place for them is a little insulting (like the insurance company that would rather write the check for the settlement from the lawsuit, instead of paying the claims in the first place) but if you want to use that as your argument, go ahead.
3. Once again, I think you’re pointing to the symptoms and and the exceptions and not the rule. I really think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just don’t think it’s as prevalent a problem or that paying players would make that problem go away. Even if it’s one student nationwide, that’s too many. But again, I’m skeptical how deep the problem actually runs.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
writers
also produce a fairly small amount of the revenue; stars directors etc. are pretty well known to produce a big chunk of the revenue. I think most would agree that the % of revenue produced by players in CFB is much bigger than the % produced by writers in Hollywood. So I think the analogy is flawed.
As far as the non-football athletes, maybe there should be some level of public discussion about how much the “welfare sports” (which is basically what they are) really ought to be taking from the pot that football and (to a lesser degree) basketball produce. I certainly don’t see “but what about the non-revenue athletes” as a sufficient reason to say that CFB players are currently getting enough, though I do think that it’s a consideration as far as defining what the high-end of “enough” is.
2) seems like we largely agree. IMO long-term health care should be part of ANY arrangement.
3) I think there are more exceptions than you do. Since there really isn’t (as far as I know) any good data on it, we can agree to disagree here.
where does the money to pay the football players come from
when OSU is already six million in the red every year?
it either comes from yet more taxpayer subsidies, or it means the gymnastics and golf teams get the axe
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
like I said
elsewhere, you’d be looking at a shakeout between the programs that can afford to pay their players and those that can’t. Which I don’t really have a problem with.
For Oregon St, it’s worth noting that they’re going to get a substantial revenue bump in the Pac-12 TV deal. Maybe the $ gap comes from there?
Man, your world of college sports sounds like fun.
I like watching the same 40 football teams, 25 basketball teams, and 4 baseball teams play each other because no one else can afford to field squads.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
well
do you wnat a playoff? It could conceivably happen with 60 programs, will never happen with 120.
And btw, the last time playoffs were seriously thought about, a number of players said that they expected to get some of that revenue stream in straight cash. That was one of the reasons the playoff idea died back in the 90’s.
The NCAA doesn’t give two armpit farts what the players think of playoffs now, and they sure as hell didn’t 20 years ago. Maybe some players were interviewed back then and said they thought they should get a cut. Doesn’t mean they had a damn thing to do with the decision.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
ncaa
didn’t make the playoff decision. the big programs made the decision, which was to create the BCS instead of a playoff. part of their thinking was that they didn’t want to risk having to pay the players. another part was that they didn’t want the NCAA to get its hands on football money like it did for basketball money.
Money is a problem is you want to continue the charade that college football is about education first. It’s about money and success first. It’s great as Duck fans we don’t have to worry about that right now.
But the amount of money in the system creates a ridiculous amount of pressure on students and coaches, which put the education aspect of college football. Obviously, this has been problematic for years, but the money involved today intensifies this issue to ridiculous degrees.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It intensifies it at the Coach, NCAA and AD level, not at the student level.
The student athletes are still there to be athletes AND students. It’s like the computer programmer at Intel. He cares about making sure every line of code programmed on the computer chips they’re delivering is right. There’s a lot of money involved in selling computer chips. The CEO, Wall Street, shareholders and the Board of Directors cares about the money.
The computer programmer cares about writing correct code. Does that mean we shouldn’t pay the the programmer? No, it just means he needs to be fairly compensated for the job he does.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
It intensifies it at the Coach, NCAA and AD level, not at the student level.
This is nonsense. If things start to go south for the Coach, AD, NCAA, who gets the shit? The players. If the season doesn’t go as well, who gets worked harder in the offseason? The players. There is intense pressure on every single level of the college football system.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So because OSU didn’t make it to a bowl game last year, their practices are harder this off season? Or because Oregon made it to the BCS their practices are going to be easier? Huh?
I’ll bet if you poll the players at OSU, Cal, Oregon Texas, etc you’ll find they all feel pretty equal amounts of pressure to do well. I’ll bet if you poll coaches that haven’t won in a while versus coaches that have… you’d get a much different story.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Word out of OSU practices so far is that they are far more intense than they have been in previous seasons. There’s a number of reasons for that, a big part is that OSU doesn’t have any stars in practice to worry about getting injured. But he’s also under far more pressure this year after his failures the past few seasons, and that’s showing.
And you’re kidding yourself if you think that the pressure to win at Texas is the same at OSU. I mean, that’s just laughable.
The basic point is that the pressure to win falls on players as well as coaches. Coaches can be fired and walk away with millions, but players can get their scholarships cut if they aren’t performing at high level, regardless of their academic performance.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
the long and short of it is
They’re Athlete-Students now, and have been for some time. Not Student-Athletes.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
A student on a full ride that's just taking classes
Isn’t contributing anything. Football brings in revenue to the school, much like research. Students performing research get paid, why shouldn’t football players? And even then, those students have the option of taking another job for extra income. A football player can’t; he’s forced to live on the measly stipend during the school year, along with the fact that he basically has an extra job and is responsible to the football program. The cases of a student on scholarship taking classes and a football player with a full ride are not equal, and should not be treated as such. In fact, because of the extra NCAA rules on jobs during the school year, football players have fewer options to fund themselves through college.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
So far I tend to agree with MattDaddys (and others) position regarding this issue.
The cost of living for these players is damn close to nothing, so in my eyes they are being compensated close to 40K a year.
I do think that it is ridiculous that the NCAA wont allow these players to sell their own merchandise. Would a bowl ring from just about any player in the SEC be sold for more than for any player in the Sun Belt? Yes. Is that unequal? Obviously. But players should be allowed to sell their stuff.
Self anointed President of the Kenjon Barner fan club.
It goes to payola
Booster: “Hey, I’ll buy whatever you don’t want from your Holiday Bowl swag bag. $5000 sound fair?”
Which is illegal.
And if they get caught, they’re fucked.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Well, yeah.
But they’re missing FIVE GAMES
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
How this whole thing went down without anyone comparing the relative benefits of top ramen, 7-11 nacho cheese sauce, and the ketchup sandwich is beyond me
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
Based on versatility, you can't beat Top Ramen.
7-11 nacho “cheese” would be second if you add the “chili”, otherwise you have to put the ketchup sandwich at second because of the nutritional value (Ketchup, as any child of the 80s should know, is a vegetable).
I think we have to assume Mr. Daddy meant to imply that actual nacho chips are the delivery device for said nacho cheese, though.
And everyone knows that nacho chips are the foundation of any healthy diet.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Fair point, however
it is dangerous to assume anything re: Mr. Daddy. I was once hanging off a cliff, and he appeared and shouted, “Give me your hand!” I assumed he was going to pull me to safety, but he just took my watch and left.
Isn't it possible he thought it was weighing you down?
Oh hell, I can’t defend this nefarious asshole anymore.
In all honesty, I just made that shit about the chips up, I don’t think he knows a gaddam thing about nacho cheese delivery.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I have it on good authority there is no actual cheese in 7-11 nacho sauce.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
With all due respect, this is a strawman that begs the question: wait, what are we talking about?
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Processed, homogenized, pasteurized, cheese colored,
dairy product is, in fact, related to cheese on a molecular level.
To Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
So is latex interior semi-gloss.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
The paint industry gives their products such delicious names, it might as well be brie.
I eat that shit all the time.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a floor wax.
It’s a dessert topping.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?
haha… Why?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I like the liquid form.
We don’t get enough Tommy Boy around here, good job.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I was giving him the inspiration to climb up himself.
I knew that he’d want his watch back, so he’d figure out a way to climb up and come get it. You know the saying, “Give the man hand, save him for a moment, teach him how to save himself, save him for life.” Or something like that.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Preferred Delivery Devices
1. Chips
2. Hot Dog and Bun
3. Hot Dog or Bun
4. Index Finger
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I stand corrected.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you Bill
I’m glad someone noticed my metaphors. I worked hard on those.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
NCAA should fund an orthopedic hospital
Speed Endurance Talent is how Track Town USA plays football. WWWWWWWWWWWWin The Day
Jared
Not to put words in your mouth, but I feel your argument that you keep repeating throughout this thread is that “we should pay kids because they choose not to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them.”
Moreover, paying them off isn’t going to help them at all in the long run.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Wouldn't a football team be better suited to be filled with players that thrive on hard work and challenge, rather than players with an overinflated sense of entitlement?
I’d rather have a dozen Brandon Bairs on my team than a dozen Joe Horns, Albert Haynesworths, or Jeremy Shockeys.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
then I hope you enjoy the Las Vegas Bowl
we need a culture change in NCAA football, and we need to invest in facilities like the Jacqua Center, but, as Jared would say, to take full advantage of their scholarships and graduate, the players just have to want it more
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Perhaps "Not Wanting It Bad Enough" should be an NCAA secondary violation.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
You and I are saying the same thing in different ways I think.
I don’t mean strictly Brandon Bair vs. Albert Haynesworth. I mean catering the culture of college football towards the Bair-type personality, that will take advantage of their opportunities, rather than expecting things to be given to them because they have physical talent. And this has to happen in high school and below as well. By the time D-I caliber athletes get to college, they’re used to having everything handed to them because they’re “special.”
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
Preseason outlook: University of Takimoto
Team is disciplined, dedicated and an example of everything that’s right in college sports. However, 12 defensive tackles on scholarship means few to distribute to other positions. Predicted finish: An honest, hardworking last.
Bair was underused at wideout, IMHO.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, yeah, you’re putting words in my mouth….
I agree with your other statement above, that we need a culture change in the NCAA. I think “paying” players (most likely through increased stipends) would be part of that.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don't understand why athletes should receive even more benefits that the general student body doesn't get.
In most cases, they’re already getting a free ride through college. You want to give them even more than that? That’s not right, in my mind.
A football player from another state playing at Oregon probably receives around 35-40 thousand dollars per year. I think that’s plenty for an “amateur” athlete.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 7:36 PM PDT reply actions
The counterargument is:
Athletes, especially football players, deserve extra benefits from their university due to the amount of revenue and attention they bring the institution they represent.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
They do get extra benefits. They usually go to school for free.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
is alzheimer's
at 40 considered an “extra benefit” too? Cause most students don’t get to enjoy that one either.
No one is being forced to play football.
It’s an inherent risk that comes with playing the sport. That’s something that you have to weigh before deciding if you want to play college football.
Not every football player has issues like this, anyway.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions
yep
as much as I love to watch football, lets just say there is a reason I will attempt to steer my own sons away from it. That may make me a hypocrite, but so be it.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Apr 11, 2011 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If there were to be some sort of post-career program where players with medical problems directly related to their playing days can receive medical assistance, that would be something worth looking at.
Then again, it sounds good in theory, but I’m not sure how well it would work in practice.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
true
how would one tell if something were football related or not
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Yeah, and there's the whole pain pill issue.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
What a load of crap, “they have a choice.” Many of the kids that play college football have no option but to play college football if they want to better their lives at all. So they move off to college, play football, and get a sub-standard education partially by choice and partially because the entire system is set up to have this kid focus only on football and create massive amounts of money for athletic departments and media machines.
This obviously gets into much bigger issues, and the NCAA is in desperate need of a culture change. But the current NCAA rules do nothing to foster this change.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Yes, because colleges sure as hell don't give away any money to students with excellent academic records or hardships with money.
I think that this whole “sub-standard education” idea that you’re pushing is a load of crap. it isn’t a function of the system. It’s a function of the lazy-ass kids that want to party and focus on being a football player. You can be a scholar and an athlete. Countless examples of this exist. Countless.
You might recall Myron Rolle, for one. Foregoed a season of football to study at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
Education is what you make of it, and that holds true for college students that are athletes, and college students that are.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions
You're both right.
It’s the responsibility of the players to make the most of the educational opportunity they are being given. It is also the responsibility of the athletic department to set their players up to succeed after football.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
Yes
and simply shoveling them a bit more money does nothing to accomplish that.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Ding, ding, ding.
You know what does help accomplish that, though?
Things such as the Jaqua Center.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
It's very important to sit in classroom seats made by Ferrarri if you are going to be comfortable enough to learn.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 11, 2011 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
simply shoveling them a bit more money does nothing to accomplish that.
Once again, pretty sure no one is saying this.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Mr Pac 10, for one,
would rather just give them a bunch of money and be done with it.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Geez, you’re just all about the straw men today, aren’t you? He threw out a whole lot of other ideas too. They may or may not make sense, but don’t make an absurd statement and then project it onto others.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
+1
directly paying players is just one possibility. It is a LOT simpler and likely to work than most other options.
Personally, I’d rather see something along the lines of a more valuable education (guaranteed scholarship for 4 years, maybe 1 extra scholarship year per 2 years of eligibility completed, etc.) along with meaningful long-term health care subsidies (needed given the health risks) and MAYBE some small level of stipend.
But I acknowledge the inherent difficulty in taking that path, and would prefer to simply pay players and be done with it if that’s the only available alternative to the current system.
ok, re-reading, I read his post a bit wrong up above
I’ll cop to that. But I understand your argument completely. You are both being “realists” and saying that there is no push to better education, etc at most institutions and so in lieu, payment should be part of the answer.
I’m saying thats a half assed answer that doesn’t actually help anything, and that doing that endorses the status quo as okay even moreso than the current situation.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
I don't have any clue what MrPacTen is saying, but that's not what I'm saying...
The major injustice of the current compensation (including scholarships) is that it locks certain players into a certain standard of living for 3+ years. This is totally unfair, and is the main reason that change is needed in compensation. You can call this “payment” or whatever else you want. The current compensation that NCAA players get, including the many asinine restrictions placed on their lives, is inadequate in many (not all) cases.
Education, etc. are a lot of other issues that should be fixed. But the current culture that the NCAA has created does not foster this environment, in part because of how NCAA players are compensated, though there are many other issues that come into play.
Lastly, your final paragraph makes absolutely no sense. You characterized our arguments as “payment should be part of the answer.” How, is a comprehensive change in the system that includes changes in compensation “half-assed?” I think a change that doesn’t seriously overhaul player compensation is half-assed and not actually serious attempt to bring about the changes desired.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Oh, and I must be a college football player getting a terrible education because I actually said "forgoed."
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions
And you missed a great chance to use the word "forwent."
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
See, and you're someone that went to college as a non-athlete.
That’s why he knew that.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm just a vocabulary geek.
Willie Lyles is dating my mom.
Addicted to Quack, home of Bill Musgrave, the best ever.
That's why you're so cute and precious.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 11, 2011 9:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Your talking to the guy who held a Facebook Garage-Sale last spring
P.S. I’ll take that OMB helmet if you still have it Tako!
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
"Foregoed" is not a word, son.
You meant to say “forewented”.
Your welcome.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
I would argue that big time high school football needs a culture change before the NCAA does
because that’s where many of the kids you talk about hit that “football or bust” track.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
At least football players dont get to enjoy tens of thousands of dollars worth of loans,
That they have to start panicking about paying off upon graduation. Most football players don’t get to enjoy that one!
Self anointed President of the Kenjon Barner fan club.
they’re already getting a free ride through college.
That’s an NCAA violation!
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
Holy batshit bonkers, nobody said my plan yet...
1. All players with a scholarship get the same amount of money put in a bank account opened for them by the university whether a rock star heisman candidate or the long snapper.
2. Stipends can be earned for good grades on a structure TBD
3. The players get that money when they graduate. Not when they leave early, when they Grad. U. Ate.
4. The NCAA puts together a healthcare plan for former players who NEED it. Applications will be handled by a third party.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
It would be better if students were able to withdraw during their time at school, with monthly limitations.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
Yes it's D3 golf, but I was recruited by three schools (all of which I eventually turned down), and it's night and day
I took recruiting trips to Lewis and Clark and one trip to Reed, and there was more focus on the academics and the school as a whole than the golf part. Sure I got to see the “facilities” and meet the team, but I probably spent more time learning about academic and extra-curricular activities from the school.
I have a hunch it’s not nearly like that on 95% of D1 football trips, but I feel like it should be.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
and that "learning about the school" stuff was all LC/Reed initiated, not by me.
Instead of “lets go clubbin, wooo!”
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
Wait. Reed recruited you?
Well, they let me in..
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Would this work?
Players who get drafted have to bay back all scholarship funds to the school they attended, and those returned funds would be put towards academic scholarships, new athletic scholarships, teacher salaries, and research funding. If you get a free ride, get drafted, and sign a contract for a minimum of $850,000, the least you could do is pay back the money you borrowed to reach that point. Especially when you’re signing contracts in the $1,000,000+ range.
by DuckIt on Apr 11, 2011 10:16 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
that would need a percentage structure based on round taken and subsequent salaries
Not a bad idea though.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
That's not a bad idea
Essentially you’d be passing the cost on to NFL organizations and their contracts for showcasing their future talent for 3+ years for free and training their future stars. Rookies would just require a higher starting salary to compensate for the payments they have to make to their old schools. I’d love for that to happen.
Unfortunately, you’d have to get it instituted into a CBA and get the players to willingly give up part of their salary to do so. That’s been hard to come by lately if you’ve watched any NFL news.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Rookies would just require a higher starting salary to compensate for the payments they have to make to their old schools
What if it was, say, you pay 100% back if you’re drafted in the 1st round, 90% in the second round, 80 in the third, etc. Then, there’s a percentage scale for one’s second contract (if there is one), so that future Tom Brady’s of the world still pay back their respective University of Michigans for their educational opportunities, etc.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
it'd have to be
steeper than that I think. How much do 3rd rounders make? I thought it was < $1M, maybe much under, which means that paying back a scholarship would be a very big chunk of the paycheck (especially after agents’ fees and taxes).
It wouldn't be all at once, I'm sure
I would think there’d be a timeframe as well.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
re-reading through this today
I keep seeing people saying how we have to deal with the “revenues.” Uh, no we don’t. Football produces a lot of revenue, it also has a lot of expenditures. You can’t say that football revenue minus football expenses is an amout that the players are entitled to some of, becuase, in essence, funding 85 womens scholarships is a football expense due to title IX. Few athletic departments actually make money when this cost is factored in, and the few that do can’t be allowed to compensate their players because it would create even a more uneven playing field between, for example, Texas and Washington State.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
ok then
by your logic football players should still be entitled to some portion of football revenue minus football expenses minus 85 womens scholarships. That’s still a substantially positive number at most big programs I’d think.
Of course, it would create a more uneven playing field between programs, but as it is there’s an uneven playing field between the programs that cheat ($500 handshakes etc.) and those that don’t. How is that uneven playing field any better than one simply defined by financial resources?
How about we allow student-athletes receive a maximum monthly amount of money and/or benefits directly from boosters. Hell – make it tax deductible. Any donations over the maximum amount goes to the school’s general scholarship fund or academia.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
Here’s an interesting concept: Make all the booster activity legal IF there is full disclosure.
The big-shot car dealer wants to give cars to the players? Fine. Publicize it. Have a web site where you can see exactly who gave LMJ his wheels, etc. List all those $500 handshakes, by player and “donor.”
I wonder how much of this would go on if it was all out in the open.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
None
They just wouldn’t disclose it. Kinda like how it is now. You’d have an empty webpage.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
exactly
which is why it’s hopelessly naive to think that giving players a “few hundred bucks” will reduce the need for compliance officers.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Supporting paying Student Athletes based on revenue generation is a fallacious argument
Some people talk about compensating athletes because of the large profits they generate for the University. I’m sure Luck or LaMike generate much much more than the ~50-150k in tuition and board scholarship they get over 3-4 years. Hence the argument that athletes should be paid for their generation of revenue.
However, 99.9% of non MBB/FB athletes (and maybe even 80% of those) cost their university much of, if not all of the ~50-150k they get in scholarships. Most sports don’t generate enough revenue to cover travel costs, let alone the value of the scholarships.
If you argue that athletes should be compensated based on market value, you are not arguing just for the Lucks and James of the world to get a multi-million dollar paycheck, you are also arguing for the tennis playing Student-Athlete to lose their scholarship as they generate no revenue and deserve no compensation. Paying athletes based on the value of revenue generated is not part of college sports and shouldn’t become part.
If you want to bump the stipend up by a couple hundred bucks so they don’t have to eat so much Ramen (although they are often fed by the team during parts of the season) then go ahead, but do it for every athlete and leave revenue generation out of it.
If you argue that athletes should be compensated based on market value, you are not arguing just for the Lucks and James of the world to get a multi-million dollar paycheck, you are also arguing for the tennis playing Student-Athlete to lose their scholarship as they generate no revenue and deserve no compensation.
You’re also arguing that the Brian Butterfields and Chad Peppars of the world receive little to no compensation.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
It needs to be inherently equal
you get a “scholarship”, you get X amount of money. no matter what.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
The issue with the student athlete today is not that it has become an oxymoron to be an SA
it is that such a massive amount of attention (and therefore revenue generation) is placed on a very few hot-spots within the NCAA world. The vast majority of NCAA athletes never dream of, and will never, become a pro in their sport. Almost all of them are at their university for their education and to join an environment to foster their athletic and leadership opportunities. They get an amazing deal: education, great coach and staff to support them, tutors, training facilities, travel and the joy of elite level competition- all of this for free!
Unfortunately?, those S-As that happen to be MBB or FB ‘skill’ position players now are worth millions and this generates the argument that players deserve more than this already amazing opportunity. I see no problem with the deal that all S-As get as a whole, and the concept of increasing the share of revenue they get based on revenue generated is, IMO, a terrible one.
And come on, who really gave a shit in college if you had to eat Top Ramen? It was funny to be poor in college, there are no football players facing genuine painful financial hardship as a result of the limitations put on them by the NCAA
There is a degree of hypocrisy. Say I’m a coach with a player who I know is from a severely disadvantaged home situation. Kid’s dad is long gone, mom’s broke, grandma raised him, grew up in the hood, friends shot in drivebys, that kind of thing. Grandma gets sick. Kid needs to get home over thanksgiving break to see her. I can’t help him get a ticket for that.
Now. Same situation, only this time the kid’s on a presidential scholarship. He’s a violinist and I’m his prof. I can give the kid a few hundred for the trip home and nobody gives a shit.
The athletic situation is handled differently, and hypocritically, because there has been so much flagrant abuse over the years. I doubt any boosters ever gave that violinist a $500 handshake. Or that the kid had agents offering to buy his mom a new house.
It all comes down to money. And the bottom line: Throwing more money at the situation is not the answer.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Very well said Matt. He has a point. These players use their sports ability to enjoy the benefits they could have say for instance tuition fees. Mean it or not, it’s a big to help to their parents keep off from taking out cash advance especially those who are not financially capable enough to send their child on school. Though some are just using this opportunity for fame and popularity.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Addicted To Quack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
