PDaDdy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity what collage team do u like? If you are asking me, I am not a college sports fan at all. I love a handful of pro sports. Bills obviously.
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) They could play arena, Canadian, or ufl... Methinks they like the tremendous free tv exposure, and access to elite coaches/trainers/facilities in addition to the schooling too though. No one forces these kids to play NCAA- but it's the best option out there. Go start your own league pdaddy and see if you can top what these schools give kids. Johnny doesn't get a paycheck but it's quite the springboard to whatever he wants - football or otherwise. Edited June 28, 2011 by NoSaint
PDaDdy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) The funny thing is I don't feel strongly about it. You obviously care 100 times more about this issue then I do. I am just stating my opinion to the topic discussion. I am not trying to argue with you or start a war of words. I promise you my blood pressure hasn't risen at all. I feel that life is full of unfair things. In that same life people have options. You have the option of helping those universities make millions or you have the option of not helping. I had the option of working at McDonalds. I felt like I was worth more than minimum wage. So I didn't work at McDonalds. I don't know all the details on this. A few years ago here in LV there was a kid who didn't want to play collage basketball. He felt like he should get paid. He went overseas instead and got paid. He had that option. Just my opinion. I understand yours. What professional football league do american kids have that they can go to straight out of high school and make money? Can they develop their skills against the best competition at their level to prepare for their future in the sport/career? Is it a viable route for the truly talented to make it and become a successful NFL pro? If the answer to these questions is "no", like any rational person would answer, you see that this isn't really a viable option. Removing your leg as a means of trimming your toe nails is an option but not really a viable one. If this were the NBA I might be more with you. Young men CAN leave high school and go directly to the NBA to make money. Professional football players? NO..Just ask Maurice Clarette. The McDonalds comparison by the way is not in any way a relevant one. McDonalds is a crap job that anyone can get and there is something better. Division I college football is a "job" that VERY VERY few can get and there is no better option!! The NCAA leverages this fact and their de facto monopoly to create an incredibly low compensation ceiling for anyone that want's to play at the highest level. College football is the players...NOT the NCAA. The NCAA has created a system where the players can't leverage their unique skills. To me ...that is not the american capitalistic way. Edited June 28, 2011 by PDaDdy
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 What professional football league do american kids have that they can go to straight out of high school and make money? Can they develop their skills against the best competition at their level to prepare for their future in the sport/career? Is it a viable route for the truly talented to make it and become a successful NFL pro? If the answer to these questions is "no", like any rational person would answer, you see that this isn't really a viable option. Removing your leg as a means of trimming your toe nails is an option but not really a viable one. If this were the NBA I might be more with you. Young men CAN leave high school and go directly to the NBA to make money. Professional football players? NO..Just ask Maurice Clarette. The McDonalds comparison by the way is not in any way a relevant one. McDonalds is a crap job that anyone can get and there is something better. Division I college football is a "job" that VERY VERY few can get and there is no better option!! The NCAA leverages this fact and their de facto monopoly to create an incredibly low compensation ceiling for anyone that want's to play at the highest level. College football is the players...NOT the NCAA. The NCAA has created a system where the players can't leverage their unique skills. To me ...that is not the american capitalistic way. So what your arguing is that because the NCAA puts together the best product out there, they should be giving more. Wouldn't the capitalist in you say someone should fill there's glaring void and offer a premiere league that takes 18 year olds?
Cynical Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 If colleges don't have to participate in the NCAA what benefit is there for them to be a member? You don't give up something for nothing and handcuff your ability to draw the best talent. ##### Just did some reading. It is basically a de facto monopoly in that it is the only game in town. You can not be a member if you don't want to play against other NCAA teams in NCAA bowl games and tournaments which would be the death of any large college program. You are correct on a technicality you don't have to belong but in spirit you are oh so wrong. Don't be so quick to discount. That "technicality" holds a lot of power, and it's the reason the disgruntled followers of numerous schools are beginning to wish their school would tell the NCAA to go !@#$ itself. From a football standpoint, just imagine if all the schools in the Big 10(+2) and the SEC pulled out of the NCAA. The fallout would be nasty. And since the NCAA has no control over the BCS, the bowls would not be impacted. Can you say "conflict of interest"? Hence, why there is a growing sentiment of distrust regarding the NCAA.
PDaDdy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 They could play arena, Canadian, or ufl... Methinks they like the tremendous free tv exposure, and access to elite coaches/trainers/facilities in addition to the schooling too though. No one forces these kids to play NCAA- but it's the best option out there. Go start your own league pdaddy and see if you can top what these schools give kids. Johnny doesn't get a paycheck but it's quite the springboard to whatever he wants - football or otherwise. Actually you struck upon what made me think of this idea. Of course it is based on me winning the mega millions. LOL. If I could for instance create a Tennessee professional team, attract the talent that Tennessee would have attracted and pay my employee's tuition TO Tennessee as well as compensate them for the WORK that they do I would love to put that football program and the NCAA out of business. Basically my desire would have been to make college football a professional after school job that just happened to pay in excess of the local school of the athletes choosing. Replace bankrupt all college football programs and play the same games just with these students that happened to have well paying after school jobs. We aren't talking millions here but if a poor kid has to bust his ass playing football, maintain grades and he can't buy himself a cheese burger and take his girl to a movie while the university makes millions. Something is really, really wrong. In my research I also found that the NCAA was created to make sports safe not to tell students couldn't make money off of their own image. Back in the day somebody put a game on TV, the public outcry for these games was incredible and the NCAA started concerning itself with money not players. Again the NCAA is basically a de facto monopoly. They aren't the only game in town but they are so big and powerful that they effectively ARE the only game in town.
KD in CA Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) When was it made optional for college athletes to participate in NCAA regulations or not? Just about the same time it became mandatory that an athlete could only compete in a college setting. If they want to play sports in college they come under the influence of the NCAA right? Right. "in college" being the operative term that you don't seem to understand. It's their organization, so they get to make the rules. An athlete can either play by them or choose to put his athletic talents to use elsewhere. There is no Constitutional right to money just because you have a talent. Someone needs to be willing to pay you for it. So what your arguing is that because the NCAA puts together the best product out there, they should be giving more. Wouldn't the capitalist in you say someone should fill there's glaring void and offer a premiere league that takes 18 year olds? Apparently he prefers the type of 'free market capitalism' where one party is forced to pay the other party more than the two sides agreed upon. Edited June 28, 2011 by KD in CT
billsfaninvgs Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 What professional football league do american kids have that they can go to straight out of high school and make money? Can they develop their skills against the best competition at their level to prepare for their future in the sport/career? Is it a viable route for the truly talented to make it and become a successful NFL pro? If the answer to these questions is "no", like any rational person would answer, you see that this isn't really a viable option. Removing your leg as a means of trimming your toe nails is an option but not really a viable one. If this were the NBA I might be more with you. Young men CAN leave high school and go directly to the NBA to make money. Professional football players? NO..Just ask Maurice Clarette. The McDonalds comparison by the way is not in any way a relevant one. McDonalds is a crap job that anyone can get and there is something better. Division I college football is a "job" that VERY VERY few can get and there is no better option!! The NCAA leverages this fact and their de facto monopoly to create an incredibly low compensation ceiling for anyone that want's to play at the highest level. College football is the players...NOT the NCAA. The NCAA has created a system where the players can't leverage their unique skills. To me ...that is not the american capitalistic way. Three things. 1) kids can't go from high school to NBA anymore they Have to wait one year after high school. That's why most kids go to collage and are one and done. 2) my Mickey D's comparison was wrong but not for the reason you pointed out. It's wrong because it's a job. Playing collage football is not. It's a luxury. 3) according to you not only do they get a free education. They get access to top notch coaches, training equipment, nutrition and to play against/with other top talent. All for free to help develope their "talents" for the next level? Sounds to me it was better for them than I thought...
billsfaninvgs Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 One thing I forgot to mention earlier is I hate the NCAA. They ruined Unlv basketball. They went after Unlv to make a example of them and it back fired. Tark sued for a couple million and won. But the school got tired of the press and asked tark to step down so he did...
PDaDdy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) So what your arguing is that because the NCAA puts together the best product out there, they should be giving more. Wouldn't the capitalist in you say someone should fill there's glaring void and offer a premiere league that takes 18 year olds? Yes they should give more without question. The amount we can argue all day. $100 a week could be a huge difference maker for a young college student that comes from an impoverished background. And honestly even a pitiful salary of $20,000 a year or roughly what a Mcdonalds cook makes in a year isn't really much to ask is it? As I mentioned in another post it would be awesome if someone with a few billion dollars would like to create a legitimate league for college age young men that would pay their tuition to their college of choice and also fairly compensated them for the incredible amount of revenue that their talents, skills, unique abilities and hard work generate. Of course this only works if this other league can literally sprout up from nowhere with similarly located stadiums, coaching and instantly attract the highest levels of talent ensuring the best levels of competition. Ya, piece of cake. Can you imagine an investor trying to go down that path only to have the NCAA with their incredible market share and backing thwart their every move? The ultimate move the NCAA could make would be to adopt the principals I expose if they truly did feel threatened. They would hate it but they could maintain their de facto monopoly. Not a great risk for our fictitious multi-billionaire. How about we address the real issue and get back on topic of a player's ability to market themselves and make their own money that takes nothing out of the pocket of the NCAA or their university? The PLAYER is their own product. If a player was an artist and drew painting and sold it on ebay is that an NCAA violation? If a player wants to buy his own jersey from the school store, put his signature on it and sell a used jersey on eBay what is wrong with that? The NCAA is preventing them from taking place in capitalistic endeavors that any other american can take advantage of. Edited June 29, 2011 by PDaDdy
PDaDdy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Three things. 1) kids can't go from high school to NBA anymore they Have to wait one year after high school. That's why most kids go to collage and are one and done. 2) my Mickey D's comparison was wrong but not for the reason you pointed out. It's wrong because it's a job. Playing collage football is not. It's a luxury. 3) according to you not only do they get a free education. They get access to top notch coaches, training equipment, nutrition and to play against/with other top talent. All for free to help develope their "talents" for the next level? Sounds to me it was better for them than I thought... All I hear is class envy. 1) Good point they did screw over young 18 year old men that chose not to go to college. I guess it's ok to go from high school to McDonalds but not high school to the NBA. What the hell kind of sense does that make???? Again, not in the American capitalist spirit. 2) Playing college football is not a luxury. It's a job and a business. Perform or lose your job/position on the team. Lose your job/position on the team lose your paycheck/scholarship. The boss makes money off of your efforts at work(on the field) YEP! Sounds like a job to me. Scouts and recruiters literally scour the country trying to persuade that hot high school prospect to come to their college. For the luxury? No my friend! To win games on Saturday and bring fortune and fame to the college. Don't forget for a second that that is what college football is about. 3) SOOooo basically you are saying that the company has a vested interest in providing their employees with the best management and training to maximize success and profits? I think that's what I'm hearing right? What kind of Bizzaro world do you live in where a college program would benefit from inferior equipment, training and coaching? It benefits all parties and in particular the university. Most of these players never go on to play at any professional level so the long term benefits of this training and coaching only applies to a select few as far as the football field goes. Edited June 29, 2011 by PDaDdy
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Here's a question. Why are there much more severe restrictions on "student athletes" than there are on regular students? Why the double standard? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I just don't understand it.
NoSaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Yes they should give more without question. The amount we can argue all day. $100 a week could be a huge difference maker for a young college student that comes from an impoverished background. And honestly even a pitiful salary of $20,000 a year or roughly what a Mcdonalds cook makes in a year isn't really much to ask is it? I don't know if you realize this, and it obviously varies by campus but a school like, say USC, is more than 20k per semester, and closing on 50k a year in scholarships with housing, food, tuition, books. Also-When you are on a totally free ride, you have little to no real expenses beyond those you choose.
Munch Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) All I hear is class envy. 1) Good point they did screw over young 18 year old men that chose not to go to college. I guess it's ok to go from high school to McDonalds but not high school to the NBA. What the hell kind of sense does that make???? Again, not in the American capitalist spirit. 2) Playing college football is not a luxury. It's a job and a business. Perform or lose your job/position on the team. Lose your job/position on the team lose your paycheck/scholarship. The boss makes money off of your efforts at work(on the field) YEP! Sounds like a job to me. Scouts and recruiters literally scour the country trying to persuade that hot high school prospect to come to their college. For the luxury? No my friend! To win games on Saturday and bring fortune and fame to the college. Don't forget for a second that that is what college football is about. 3) SOOooo basically you are saying that the company has a vested interest in providing their employees with the best management and training to maximize success and profits? I think that's what I'm hearing right? What kind of Bizzaro world do you live in where a college program would benefit from inferior equipment, training and coaching? It benefits all parties and in particular the university. Most of these players never go on to play at any professional level so the long term benefits of this training and coaching only applies to a select few as far as the football field goes. 1.) Who "screwed them over"? The NBA owners AND players union? The people who stand to make the most $$ off the players is the NBA owners...So who again actually screwed them over? Maybe The owners AND players union thought it was a good idea to let the players develop a bit...gain experience. There are many many jobs in america that an 18 year old right out of high school is unqualified for, and would never get. The NBA is one of them. 2.) College football is a choice. You know when you pick an NCAA school that you will not be paid more than tuition, as well as the rules regarding selling your merchandise etc. No one forces you to do this, if you dont want to you dont have to. I deserve to get paid more than 40k/yr at my job, and I know this every day I walk into the doors, yet I choose to work there anyways cause there aint a better gig in town. Sucks, but hey, thats a capitalist society. The reason they dont get paid is because where would it end? Does someone on the womens lacrosse team, which makes no money for the school at all, deserve to get paid as much as a football player? They are likely just as talented just in something different. Than the question becomes does a football player at UB deserve to make as much as someone at USC? Paying student athletes would kill college athletics in so many ways its ridiculous. Non money making sports would be cut (which would leave football and mens basketball essentially). A handful of schools would be ridiculously above the rest just because the difference in marketability the athlete would have for himself and students (yes students) would be making college choices based soley on money. Lane Kiffin would be selling these kids (many of which come from nothing) on the money aspect of going there, and nothing else. Remember these are 18 year olds, and college is supposed to prepare them for a future career (99% of which will be not football). Smaller schools and ones in unfavorable markets would totally phased out. Great rivalries like Michigan and Ohio state would lose relevance. Traditions lost. Thats why they dont pay student athletes. Edited June 29, 2011 by Munch
PDaDdy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Posted June 29, 2011 I don't know if you realize this, and it obviously varies by campus but a school like, say USC, is more than 20k per semester, and closing on 50k a year in scholarships with housing, food, tuition, books. Also-When you are on a totally free ride, you have little to no real expenses beyond those you choose. Actually I wasn't aware that it could be quite that expensive but I guess what I am talking about is allowing the athlete to make their own money. On top of that it would be nice if the school gave them some spending cash above and beyond the school costs whatever that number happens to be for their particular school.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Here's a question. Why are there much more severe restrictions on "student athletes" than there are on regular students? Why the double standard? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I just don't understand it. This also might be helpful: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation%20and%20Governance/Eligibility%20and%20Recruiting/ed_expenses.html It's the NCAA's general restrictions on who a student athlete may or may not receive money from.
PDaDdy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) The reason they dont get paid is because where would it end? Does someone on the womens lacrosse team, which makes no money for the school at all, deserve to get paid as much as a football player? They are likely just as talented just in something different. Than the question becomes does a football player at UB deserve to make as much as someone at USC? Paying student athletes would kill college athletics in so many ways its ridiculous. Non money making sports would be cut (which would leave football and mens basketball essentially). A handful of schools would be ridiculously above the rest just because the difference in marketability the athlete would have for himself and students (yes students) would be making college choices based soley on money. Lane Kiffin would be selling these kids (many of which come from nothing) on the money aspect of going there, and nothing else. Remember these are 18 year olds, and college is supposed to prepare them for a future career (99% of which will be not football). Smaller schools and ones in unfavorable markets would totally phased out. Great rivalries like Michigan and Ohio state would lose relevance. Traditions lost. Thats why they dont pay student athletes. Don't just jump into the deep end. Obviously there would be limits to what a university would directly compensate a player. As far as different sports believe me there are numbers for every sport, every jersey, every ticket every television right. The obvious answer is you base the compensation on what the sport brings in. You give all athletes in a particular sport the same compensation. We are talking small amounts of money compared to the hundreds of millions that colleges collectively bring in. This is just a little bit of "do the right thing". You can fret all day about what if this, what if that. We aren't here to work out an entire compensation system for college players just discuss the concept that obviously has merit in doing the right thing for the players and some pitfalls that would have to be addressed. The point is that it could be made to happen responsibly and effectively. It's been difficult because I indulged if not started straying from topic but...back on topic....What is wrong with allowing the player to make their own money? Sell their own visage, sell their autograph sell and old pair of shoes? Any other american has this right. Why not a college football player? Edited June 29, 2011 by PDaDdy
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Interesting read. I agree that the NCAA is a monopoly and that they violate the tenants of free market principals, just not capitalism. Students in my opinion should be eligible for compensation for their athletic ability at least as far as ownership of their own image or likeness when used in publications or for sale. The amount of students that actually benefit financially afterwards professionally for their participation in college athletics is small. In basketball a High School student still has the choice to go overseas and play, or to play in the NBA's developmental leagues. Baseball is similar and hockey is an interesting hodgepodge, but has different routes to become a professional without going to a University. I suppose arena league football and the CFL might provide another avenue, but I am not sure if this a stable route. My question is why does the NCAA prohibit pay for a student who receives compensation for participating in another sport. That is where the rub comes in to me. Why can't a student football player make money say playing australian rules football during the summer. From reading the above link it seems to me that is the case or am I wrong. I still think the NCAA is a scam for the average student athlete unless that athlete is actually gaining a legitimate degree. Or the NCAA should be prohibited from using the the "term student athlete" as it is dishonest or talented athletes enrolled in questionable accredited high ed programs should not be eligible to play those Div I teams. Since that is not the case, I would call this an exploitation of labor. That being said the only real legal question I have is over ownership of one's image and the compensation a school and business receives from use of said likeness. It is my understanding that is still being worked through the courts. Make no mistake though, the NCAA is a sanctioned monopolistic use of labor. I am just not sure there is a legal argument for a remedy.
Recommended Posts