NCAA Rules and Player Compensation

[NoSaint]

I looked at the article you provided and it seems like more NCAA shenanigans. The don't release profits or expenses for their programs but expect us to believe that only a handful of schools make a profit? What they hell are they spending money on? Their workforce plays for peanuts or nothing at all, they get TV money, merchandise money, ticket revenue and alumni contributions.

 

Being a skeptic I don't believe a word of that article until I can see the whole picture and see what money is being counted where.

 

I agree more info would be nice but if the conversation has devolved into "anything contradicting me is lies" it's going to be hard to talk.

 

Sit at a tulane football game with no tv crew, and maybe 3 sections of seats full (including students with free tickets) and tell me that is covering room, board, classes, trainers, coaches, facilities, insurance, transportation, stadium costs, etc....

 

Just like they don't want to report huge earnings, no school wants to report losses because suddenly your program is on the chopping block. Just something to keep in mind.

[Mr. WEO]

I looked at the article you provided and it seems like more NCAA shenanigans. The don't release profits or expenses for their programs but expect us to believe that only a handful of schools make a profit? What they hell are they spending money on? Their workforce plays for peanuts or nothing at all, they get TV money, merchandise money, ticket revenue and alumni contributions.

 

Being a skeptic I don't believe a word of that article until I can see the whole picture and see what money is being counted where.

Of course you don't--because it refutes your argument. So you're going to get back to us after you "see the whole picture and see what money is being counted where"? Yeah--OK.

 

Anyway schools like OSU and Alabama spend over 31 million per year on football alone--coddling their poor, exploited "workers".

 

This sums it up for you (from the article you don't like)--"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money." Or, really, splitting what's left of the total after you've blown 31 million on the football squad.

[PDaDdy]

I agree more info would be nice but if the conversation has devolved into "anything contradicting me is lies" it's going to be hard to talk.

 

Sit at a tulane football game with no tv crew, and maybe 3 sections of seats full (including students with free tickets) and tell me that is covering room, board, classes, trainers, coaches, facilities, insurance, transportation, stadium costs, etc....

 

Just like they don't want to report huge earnings, no school wants to report losses because suddenly your program is on the chopping block. Just something to keep in mind.

 

Oh no doubt. I agree with you why those figures could be hidden. You could be right for all I know but without the proof we are guessing. It just has to do with taking something on the faith from an organization that isn't necessarily viewed in the highest regard or trustworthy even by the people who defend it to some extent. It's not just because it doesn't seem to jive with the beliefs and views of the NCAA I seem to be developing.

 

I really am trying to learn something and am in no way an expert as I have stated many times.

 

Of course you don't--because it refutes your argument. So you're going to get back to us after you "see the whole picture and see what money is being counted where"? Yeah--OK.

 

Anyway schools like OSU and Alabama spend over 31 million per year on football alone--coddling their poor, exploited "workers".

 

This sums it up for you (from the article you don't like)--"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money." Or, really, splitting what's left of the total after you've blown 31 million on the football squad.

 

I wouldn't expect a fair and measured response from you so you gets what you get. I am trying to learn something here as stated above. Personally I like to learn from FACTS not from HEARSAY. I don't indiscriminately shoot down information because if would seem to disagree with my opinion. Unlike many if new information is proved to be valid I change my opinion. I would rather have the right answer than win an argument. This requires a person to always be ready to learn but be skeptical of new information that comes along until it can be validated. That is an important concept if you think about it.

 

Man you are just a hateful jealous person of anyone who has talent and is treated differently than anyone else aren't you? "Coddling"? Sheesh. You would think these guys get manicures, pedicures and sponge baths from the cheerleaders, don't have to put in any work and just have to show up to receive the adulation of the masses. Were you one of the geeks who was jealous of the jocks in your school? Wow! .....I was both....but anyhow.

 

I'm glad some information was found regarding the issue, one article, but it honestly is all opinion without many/any facts. I agree with some of the opinions at a high level but need to see facts to believe some others.

 

That being said, again the focus is more on allowing the player to make their own money but I do feel that the universities should be a little more generous with these guys.

Edited June 30, 2011 by PDaDdy

[Mr. WEO]

Oh no doubt. I agree with you why those figures could be hidden. You could be right for all I know but without the proof we are guessing. It just has to do with taking something on the faith from an organization that isn't necessarily viewed in the highest regard or trustworthy even by the people who defend it to some extent. It's not just because it doesn't seem to jive with the beliefs and views of the NCAA I seem to be developing.

 

I really am trying to learn something and am in no way an expert as I have stated many times.

 

 

 

I wouldn't expect a fair and measured response from you so you gets what you get. I am trying to learn something here as stated above. Personally I like to learn from FACTS not from HEARSAY. I don't indiscriminately shoot down information because if would seem to disagree with my opinion. Unlike many if new information is proved to be valid I change my opinion. I would rather have the right answer than win an argument. This requires a person to always be ready to learn but be skeptical of new information that comes along until it can be validated. That is an important concept if you think about it.

 

The data comes from an accounting professor for a Div III school. You don't like his report, yet you provide no facts contracry to his--and you say you are trying to learn something? I don't get it. He just taught you something. You dismissed it out of hand as "hearsay", yet you can't explain why, other than you are "suspicious". You have to do better than that if you want to convince anyone at all that your argument has any merit.

 

 

Man you are just a hateful jealous person of anyone who has talent and is treated differently than anyone else aren't you? "Coddling"? Sheesh. You would think these guys get manicures, pedicures and sponge baths from the cheerleaders, don't have to put in any work and just have to show up to receive the adulation of the masses. Were you one of the geeks who was jealous of the jocks in your school? Wow! .....I was both....but anyhow.

 

I'm glad some information was found regarding the issue, one article, but it honestly is all opinion without many/any facts. I agree with some of the opinions at a high level but need to see facts to believe some others.

 

That being said, again the focus is more on allowing the player to make their own money but I do feel that the universities should be a little more generous with these guys.

 

Because I disagree that these kids should get paid for playing college ball and I point out that they are coddled (if it is news to you that football players form Div 1 powerhouses are provided the best of the best (coddled), compared to, say, an Ivy or Div 3 guy working just as hard evey day, then you don't belong in this converstation), I'm not being fair and measured?

 

I don't "hate" football players, or anyone for that matter--unless you are using a 10th grader's vernacular definition of the word. I went to a Div 3 school so the University sports were not a major campus life factor. We played a lot of intramural sports--because it was fun. Either way, it doesn't take a "geek" to notice the weakness in your point.

 

Also, I wouldn't rule out that the Div1 guys are getting sponge baths by the cheerleaders...

[PDaDdy]

The data comes from an accounting professor for a Div III school. You don't like his report, yet you provide no facts contracry to his--and you say you are trying to learn something? I don't get it. He just taught you something. You dismissed it out of hand as "hearsay", yet you can't explain why, other than you are "suspicious". You have to do better than that if you want to convince anyone at all that your argument has any merit.

 

How does he get data when the NCAA doesn't report that type of information? DUDE! I know you live to contradict me but give it a rest. Just because someone puts an OPINION in print does not a fact make

 

 

Because I disagree that these kids should get paid for playing college ball and I point out that they are coddled (if it is news to you that football players form Div 1 powerhouses are provided the best of the best (coddled), compared to, say, an Ivy or Div 3 guy working just as hard evey day, then you don't belong in this converstation), I'm not being fair and measured?

 

I don't "hate" football players, or anyone for that matter--unless you are using a 10th grader's vernacular definition of the word. I went to a Div 3 school so the University sports were not a major campus life factor. We played a lot of intramural sports--because it was fun. Either way, it doesn't take a "geek" to notice the weakness in your point.

 

Also, I wouldn't rule out that the Div1 guys are getting sponge baths by the cheerleaders...

 

Although an image I would love to indulge for a while again you aren't providing facts merely that "you wouldn't doubt it" or that because you went to a D3 school that you know how athletes are treated in a D1 school. Really?

Edited June 30, 2011 by PDaDdy

[NoSaint]

I went to a D1 school with a football team that lost money all 4 years I was there. Still is, and is constantly on the chopping block because of it.

 

I think you are projecting the profits that teams like Texas, bama, Florida, are getting all the way through to the ball state, tulane and wyomings- which is far from true.

 

There's a lot of costs to being a div1 school also... Coaching, training, facilities, transportation, room, board, schooling, equipment, officials, insurances,and don't forget maintaining teams in 16 sports.... And of course funding the NCAA staff and all that goes with that.

Edited June 30, 2011 by NoSaint

[PDaDdy]

I went to a D1 school with a football team that lost money all 4 years I was there. Still is, and is constantly on the chopping block because of it.

 

I think you are projecting the profits that teams like Texas, bama, Florida, are getting all the way through to the ball state, tulane and wyomings- which is far from true.

 

There's a lot of costs to being a div1 school also... Coaching, training, facilities, transportation, room, board, schooling, equipment, officials, insurances,and don't forget maintaining teams in 16 sports.... And of course funding the NCAA staff and all that goes with that.

 

Thanks for the first hand info.

 

I don't know that I am projecting anything because I honestly don't know anything. lol. I'm sure there are lots and lots of costs some of which may be associated with being an NCAA member that I don't know about because they don't open the books. I guess that was all I was saying. Your personal experience seems to point to this being a problem for the school you went to and who knows how many others.

 

In hindsight I guess I really should have said NCAA College Football and Player Compensation to limit the discussion to football. Without a doubt I would imagine that other sports far and away would be losing money just due to the smaller revenues generated by lack of television rights, merchandise and ticket sales. Perhaps part of the problem with the football discussion is some of that money gets filtered into other sports that operate at a deficit. Further clouds the picture I guess.

Edited June 30, 2011 by PDaDdy

[Mr. WEO]

Come on! Read the article--the guy got the info from the NCAA, which doesn't release indivdual schools' expenses to guys like you and me. They gave him the data--the study was released by the NCAA--it's not an OP/Ed piece.

 

And do you really need to imagine that a school that spends 25-31 million a year on football affords a different, more luxurious colleege fooball experience than any Div 3 program?

[PDaDdy]

Come on! Read the article--the guy got the info from the NCAA, which doesn't release indivdual schools' expenses to guys like you and me. They gave him the data--the study was released by the NCAA--it's not an OP/Ed piece.

 

And do you really need to imagine that a school that spends 25-31 million a year on football affords a different, more luxurious colleege fooball experience than any Div 3 program?

 

 

Ok I'll play.

 

Can you quote me the section of the article where the writer says that he got the financial information from the NCAA on the schools to make his determination??? All I see is him referencing an NCAA report that says a lot of those schools lost money without defining what expenses and income are included and did so without providing a single piece of financial information. I could issue a report saying I am a millionaire but until you see my financials it doesn't mean jack.

 

I'm not trying to be a lawyer on this but I don't see that info anywhere. I do see where the article says that the NCAA's policy is to not divulge school financials. If that is their policy why would they divulge this information to some writer for the "Bright House Sports Network"? They would have to trust that this person kept this information secret or I would imagine risk hundreds of law suites. That just doesn't track for me.

 

You are banging this side issue to death. What do you think about players being able to make their own money off of their own name, signatures, image, etc?

Edited June 30, 2011 by PDaDdy

[NoSaint]

Thanks for the first hand info.

 

I don't know that I am projecting anything because I honestly don't know anything. lol. I'm sure there are lots and lots of costs some of which may be associated with being an NCAA member that I don't know about because they don't open the books. I guess that was all I was saying. Your personal experience seems to point to this being a problem for the school you went to and who knows how many others.

 

In hindsight I guess I really should have said NCAA College Football and Player Compensation to limit the discussion to football. Without a doubt I would imagine that other sports far and away would be losing money just due to the smaller revenues generated by lack of television rights, merchandise and ticket sales. Perhaps part of the problem with the football discussion is some of that money gets filtered into other sports that operate at a deficit. Further clouds the picture I guess.

 

 

It's all kinds of murky.

 

And accounting wise I'd be curious what scholarships are chalked up as. I know the marginal cost of adding a football player to campus aren't the same as the dollar value of the scholarship.

 

And as you said, it's less offensive if profits are spent charitably- if you take the articles numbers at face value, those 100 or so football and bball teams turning profit are keeping 2000 teams afloat. (quick, dirty and not 100% true but enough for broad strokes discussion).

 

Another issue with a break even team is they are often at schools that wouldn't be carrying 16 D1 sports teams otherwise, but suck up the loss to keep the D1 football title---- suddenly that football is forcing you to carry a lot of deficit spending.

 

Which brings me to the last hard to account for revenue (so in your sides favor) which is the publicity and exposure. There's no getting around D1 schools getting more/better applicants based on there football prestige. I have no idea how to quantify it.

 

It's a damn mess and anyone who claims to have a fast fix all is the last person to listen to. I think the start is to realign the culture to student athlete instead of pro athlete that happens to get a diploma. To say 15 sports are a hobby, and service the school provides, while one is a job with the students providing the services is not a fair prism to view this through in my opinion... Truly I think that's where the heart of the discussion lies...

 

And now to get off the soapbox

[PDaDdy]

It's all kinds of murky.

 

And accounting wise I'd be curious what scholarships are chalked up as. I know the marginal cost of adding a football player to campus aren't the same as the dollar value of the scholarship.

 

And as you said, it's less offensive if profits are spent charitably- if you take the articles numbers at face value, those 100 or so football and bball teams turning profit are keeping 2000 teams afloat. (quick, dirty and not 100% true but enough for broad strokes discussion).

 

Another issue with a break even team is they are often at schools that wouldn't be carrying 16 D1 sports teams otherwise, but suck up the loss to keep the D1 football title---- suddenly that football is forcing you to carry a lot of deficit spending.

 

Which brings me to the last hard to account for revenue (so in your sides favor) which is the publicity and exposure. There's no getting around D1 schools getting more/better applicants based on there football prestige. I have no idea how to quantify it.

 

It's a damn mess and anyone who claims to have a fast fix all is the last person to listen to. I think the start is to realign the culture to student athlete instead of pro athlete that happens to get a diploma. To say 15 sports are a hobby, and service the school provides, while one is a job with the students providing the services is not a fair prism to view this through in my opinion... Truly I think that's where the heart of the discussion lies...

 

And now to get off the soapbox

 

Heh good points in there but we definitely disagree on some and probably will always which is of course ok. You brought up a great point as well which I didn't even bother to because it is difficult to quantify. Regular students do let the sports team and campus feel influence their decision on where to go to school.

 

There is this weird situation where college sports are "subsidized" if you will by student tuition and charitable donations. This is part of my discussion about how do they determine which teams make money and which don't? If you consider these subsidies as part of the income of the team all of these teams break even because the money to run them comes from tuition and donations.

 

If you only look at the revenue the team generates vs operating costs then you can probably say a lot of teams ARE losing money. It's all in the accounting which is my point. Until we see those numbers and look at how they are accounting we really don't know anything. Even then it would be tough to make a blanket statement as teams that have high revenue probably budget very little to support that team where as teams that have very little revenue might budget quite a bit more.

 

Remember there was college football for decades before it was televised. Nobody sent out reports saying these teams were losing money. It was just football you know what I mean? Now that the games are televised and it has become a big business.

[Mr. WEO]

Ok I'll play.

 

Can you quote me the section of the article where the writer says that he got the financial information from the NCAA on the schools to make his determination??? All I see is him referencing an NCAA report that says a lot of those schools lost money without defining what expenses and income are included and did so without providing a single piece of financial information. I could issue a report saying I am a millionaire but until you see my financials it doesn't mean jack.

 

I'm not trying to be a lawyer on this but I don't see that info anywhere. I do see where the article says that the NCAA's policy is to not divulge school financials. If that is their policy why would they divulge this information to some writer for the "Bright House Sports Network"? They would have to trust that this person kept this information secret or I would imagine risk hundreds of law suites. That just doesn't track for me.

 

You are banging this side issue to death. What do you think about players being able to make their own money off of their own name, signatures, image, etc?

OK--if you want to say that this guy made all the info up. That's the only way you can continue.

 

But here it is--you'll notice the letterhead on the report by Prof. Fulks. He has written such reports before--for the NCAA

 

In his words:

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Jim Isch, Senior Vice

President, and Todd Petr, Director of Research for the NCAA, for providing

me the opportunity to conduct this study and the freedom to carry it

out as I saw fit.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/RE2008.pdf

 

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4134-revenues-expenses-profits-losses-of-div-i-a-intercollegiate-athletics-programs-aggrevated-by-conference-2003-fiscal-year.aspx

 

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/August+latest+news/Latest+revenues+and+expense+data+reveal+effects+of+slumping+economy

 

As for athletes, if they want to sell their name signatures and image--tell them not to sign their contract with the university/NCAA that forbids them from doing so. Let them see what they can get for their goods when they are not Div1 Football stars.

 

In my place of employment, if I come up with some valuable intellectual property, 90% of any procedes from it goes to the univeristy that employs me/ Why, because I signed a contract that allows them to take 90%. I could have shopped around for a better deal but my deal is pretty good.

 

How much do you give theses kids?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[Indy Dave]

Because of my job, I generally stay away from discussions about the NCAA. The public's understanding of how it operates and the many good things it does is, well...a joke. Not that it's the public's fault, and not that the organization doesn't have its flaws...

 

Anyway, I thought I'd share this link in hopes those of you writing in this thread find it useful.

 

My link

Edited July 1, 2011 by Indy Dave

[PDaDdy]

OK--if you want to say that this guy made all the info up. That's the only way you can continue.

 

But here it is--you'll notice the letterhead on the report by Prof. Fulks. He has written such reports before--for the NCAA

 

In his words:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/RE2008.pdf

 

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4134-revenues-expenses-profits-losses-of-div-i-a-intercollegiate-athletics-programs-aggrevated-by-conference-2003-fiscal-year.aspx

 

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/August+latest+news/Latest+revenues+and+expense+data+reveal+effects+of+slumping+economy

 

As for athletes, if they want to sell their name signatures and image--tell them not to sign their contract with the university/NCAA that forbids them from doing so. Let them see what they can get for their goods when they are not Div1 Football stars.

 

In my place of employment, if I come up with some valuable intellectual property, 90% of any procedes from it goes to the univeristy that employs me/ Why, because I signed a contract that allows them to take 90%. I could have shopped around for a better deal but my deal is pretty good.

 

How much do you give theses kids?

 

So as a compensated employee you signed a contract giving away the right to your intellectual property? How does that relate to a student athlete that wants to play football? Remember not every one of these guys gets a free or even partially free ride. How is that fair for them? In the law and in america there is this concept of inalienable rights that can't be signed away. I happen to think that things like an individuals image and signature are not things that they coerced into signing away for nothing to be able to play a game.

 

I hate to be that guy because I think the information is much more important than the source but you have revealed a bias in my opinion. You work for a university and quite possibly have an axe to grind or an agenda. Maybe you don't but it is interesting.

 

Remember that you create intellectual property for the school. The athletes ARE the property so to speak. They are being prevented from selling themselves if you will. It's not an issue of legality because they aren't breaking the law. It's an issue of the NCAA making sure that they can squeeze every single cent out of their "business".

Edited July 1, 2011 by PDaDdy

[PDaDdy]

Because of my job, I generally stay away from discussions about the NCAA. The public's understanding of how it operates and the many good things it does is, well...a joke. Not that it's the public's fault, and not that the organization doesn't have its flaws...

 

Anyway, I thought I'd share this link in hopes those of you writing in this thread find it useful.

 

My link

 

There was some information in there. One question and answer pair that I thought was interesting and applies directly to my initial posts.

 

Q: Why is it permissible for a university and the NCAA to make money from a player's memorabilia but not an active student-athlete?

 

A: Oh, the $1 million (or billion) question. The NCAA believes that allowing an active student-athlete to sell his memorabilia would make it impossible to maintain a semblance of amateurism. Technically, the NCAA considers selling of awards or gifts a violation of its preferential benefit rules. It believes that memorabilia such as jerseys are owned by the individual university, not student-athletes.

 

brabinowitz@dispatch.com

 

I personally believe there is a loop hole. If I buy a Buffalo Bills Jersey it is now my property. I OWN IT! If I want to sell it as a used piece of merchandise with my signature on it who is to stop me? Now of course my signature would mean nothing on a Fred Jackson jersey and this "used" jersey wouldn't fetch much on eBay. If a player however purchased their own jersey, signed it and sold it as a used shirt that just happened to have their name on it why would the NCAA have any jurisdiction over that?

 

To me the amateur status issue is BS since people are making billions off of these amateurs. I would hate to use a certain analogy that certain sensationalists would love to blow out of proportion but they have effectively declared their "workforce" to be intelligible for compensation thus guaranteeing themselves free, albeit "voluntary", labor. I put voluntary in quotes because they don't have to play but they don't really have any other viable competitive options.

Edited July 1, 2011 by PDaDdy

[Mr. WEO]

So as a compensated employee you signed a contract giving away the right to your intellectual property? How does that relate to a student athlete that wants to play football? Remember not every one of these guys gets a free or even partially free ride. How is that fair for them? In the law and in america there is this concept of inalienable rights that can't be signed away. I happen to think that things like an individuals image and signature are not things that they coerced into signing away for nothing to be able to play a game.

 

Each Div1 team is allowed 85 scholarship positions for players in any given year. Less than half of those players are starters or see regular action. Logic would dictate that those are the ones receiving full tuition/room/board/books ("full ride"). Yet they seem to be the ones (not the scrubs and benchwarmers) who are violating the rules and taking the money. Why is that?

 

No one coerces an athlete to sign away his rights. They don't have to play college football. Every participatory contract, whether you're joining a private club, college team, or place of employment requires the signee to agree and adhere to the terms of the contract--and they often limit what you might consider your "rights". But you don't have to sign.

 

 

I hate to be that guy because I think the information is much more important than the source but you have revealed a bias in my opinion. You work for a university and quite possibly have an axe to grind or an agenda. Maybe you don't but it is interesting.

 

Actually, you have no regard for "the inforamtion"--as you made clear with your riduculous assault on the NCAA reports listed above. You inisisted on claiming that Fulks simply made up his facts and was expressing his opinion only, when that was completely false. A simple google of "Fulks NCAA" would have saved you yet another heaping load of embarrassment, "dude".

 

 

Remember that you create intellectual property for the school. The athletes ARE the property so to speak. They are being prevented from selling themselves if you will. It's not an issue of legality because they aren't breaking the law. It's an issue of the NCAA making sure that they can squeeze every single cent out of their "business".

 

Actually, I create nothing for the University. But if I did, I wouldn't get much for my efforts. Football scholarship athletes are compensated for their work-over 100 grand for the 4 year plan. This is compensation they likely would never have gotten if they were not athletes.

 

If you are all about being fair, should Div 2 and 3 players be compensated also? They put in as many hours, actually have to study, likely have real part time jobs and don't get the multimillion dollar training facilities, chartered flights, etc that their brothers in Div 1's top programs do. Or is it because their Div 2/3 programs don't generate millions of dollars they shouldn't be paid for their efforts? What about the Ivies? Those guys compete at the Div 1 level but receive no athletic scholarships. Shouldn't they have a huge beef with the system?

 

Look, the fact that the vast majority of Div 1 football players don't take money under the table is allows one to conclude that they are able to live within their means for the time they are in college with what they are given. No one is starving. A relatively few guys are trading jerseys for tattoos. They are accepting new or different cars annually form shady boosters---because they like new cars and think they deserve them.

 

This is not a civil rights issue.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the International Olympic Committee finally admitted that amateurism was a complete scam/sham and finally stopped pretending that athletes who participated in the Olympics were amateurs.

 

The "purists" were so offended when it was ruled that these athletes could accept money for competitions… that they were no longer "true amateurs."

 

After that psychological hurdle was cleared, no one cared anymore because they get to watch the world's best athletes compete without having to jump through stupid arbitrary hoops.

 

No one cares anymore that Usain Bolt can receive $250,000 to show up at a track meet in Toronto.

 

The only thing people care about now regarding Olympic athletes is that no one is cheating to gain an unfair advantage.

 

We live in a capitalistic society… why the pretense that college athletes have to be as chaste as the driven snow?

[NoSaint]

I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the International Olympic Committee finally admitted that amateurism was a complete scam/sham and finally stopped pretending that athletes who participated in the Olympics were amateurs.

 

The "purists" were so offended when it was ruled that these athletes could accept money for competitions… that they were no longer "true amateurs."

 

After that psychological hurdle was cleared, no one cared anymore because they get to watch the world's best athletes compete without having to jump through stupid arbitrary hoops.

 

No one cares anymore that Usain Bolt can receive $250,000 to show up at a track meet in Toronto.

 

The only thing people care about now regarding Olympic athletes is that no one is cheating to gain an unfair advantage.

 

We live in a capitalistic society… why the pretense that college athletes have to be as chaste as the driven snow?

 

Difference to me is I saw the amateur requirement as odd. I thought Olympic gold meant greatest in the world, not greatest unpaid in the world.

 

With college athletics, I view it through the prism of the school providing a chance for those students to practice their outside interests at the most basic level. Just because a handful of college athletic teams make money (which is sunk back into the departments) doesn't change that. Just because a terrelle Pryor thinks he's already a professional athlete doesn't change that view for me when I think about the players on the 2000 NCAA div1 sports teams.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the International Olympic Committee finally admitted that amateurism was a complete scam/sham and finally stopped pretending that athletes who participated in the Olympics were amateurs.

 

The "purists" were so offended when it was ruled that these athletes could accept money for competitions… that they were no longer "true amateurs."

 

After that psychological hurdle was cleared, no one cared anymore because they get to watch the world's best athletes compete without having to jump through stupid arbitrary hoops.

 

No one cares anymore that Usain Bolt can receive $250,000 to show up at a track meet in Toronto.

 

The only thing people care about now regarding Olympic athletes is that no one is cheating to gain an unfair advantage.

 

We live in a capitalistic society… why the pretense that college athletes have to be as chaste as the driven snow?

 

Difference to me is I saw the amateur requirement as odd. I thought Olympic gold meant greatest in the world, not greatest unpaid in the world.

 

With college athletics, I view it through the prism of the school providing a chance for those students to practice their outside interests at the most basic level. Just because a handful of college athletic teams make money (which is sunk back into the departments) doesn't change that. Just because a terrelle Pryor thinks he's already a professional athlete doesn't change that view for me when I think about the players on the 2000 NCAA div1 sports teams.

I agree that Olympic athletes and college athletes are not equivalent situations… but there's something there to consider.

 

I'm thinking aloud during this thread and my thought process now is this:

 

I'm not yet sure that I want to see big-revenue sports, college athletes (Division I-a football and basketball players) getting paid a stipend beyond their scholarships… although I'm not necessarily against it either. The question is whether giving them a stipend for the 700+ hours or so they invest in sports alone each year would cut down on cheating and boosters glad handing with $100 handshakes, etc.

 

It's not uncommon for a regular grad student to receive an academic stipend worth thousands of dollars per month (on top of their tuition and fees) to compensate them for the long hours they contribute to the university and the fact that such an investment in time and energy precludes them from working a paying job. I think the argument could easily be made that there's a difficult-to-justify double standard between what regular students can receive and what "student athletes" can receive due to the rules of the NCAA. I have a very hard time reconciling this double standard.

 

Back to the stipend issue, if you thought that a stipend would substantially cut down on cheating, I think it would have to be considered. However, I'm far from certain that it would, in fact, cut down on cheating.

 

I think that in order for athletic stipends to work, that there would have to be a real crackdown on boosterism and all those things you had talked about before.

 

The problem I see is that I view cheating as being rampant in the areas we're discussing. Ohio State University, for instance has 6 "compliance" officers and yet they basically hid their heads in the sand when all bartering of merchandise for tattoos and other things was going on.

 

IMO, if the athletes were given a fair stipend for the fact that they spend 700+ hours per year helping the school generate money, I think that would be fair. But I doubt that it would cut down on the cheating and abuses that are part of the ruination of the current system.

 

 

[NoSaint]

I agree that Olympic athletes and college athletes are not equivalent situations… but there's something there to consider.

 

I'm thinking aloud during this thread and my thought process now is this:

 

I'm not yet sure that I want to see big-revenue sports, college athletes (Division I-a football and basketball players) getting paid a stipend beyond their scholarships… although I'm not necessarily against it either. The question is whether giving them a stipend for the 700+ hours or so they invest in sports alone each year would cut down on cheating and boosters glad handing with $100 handshakes, etc.

 

It's not uncommon for a regular grad student to receive an academic stipend worth thousands of dollars per month (on top of their tuition and fees) to compensate them for the long hours they contribute to the university and the fact that such an investment in time and energy precludes them from working a paying job. I think the argument could easily be made that there's a difficult-to-justify double standard between what regular students can receive and what "student athletes" can receive due to the rules of the NCAA. I have a very hard time reconciling this double standard.

 

Back to the stipend issue, if you thought that a stipend would substantially cut down on cheating, I think it would have to be considered. However, I'm far from certain that it would, in fact, cut down on cheating.

 

I think that in order for athletic stipends to work, that there would have to be a real crackdown on boosterism and all those things you had talked about before.

 

The problem I see is that I view cheating as being rampant in the areas we're discussing. Ohio State University, for instance has 6 "compliance" officers and yet they basically hid their heads in the sand when all bartering of merchandise for tattoos and other things was going on.

 

IMO, if the athletes were given a fair stipend for the fact that they spend 700+ hours per year helping the school generate money, I think that would be fair. But I doubt that it would cut down on the cheating and abuses that are part of the ruination of the current system.

 

 

and for me thats kind of where it comes full circle for me and back to the top level people needing to be held highly accountable. if tressel was blackballed for life for signing off that the program was clean, while he obviously knew otherwise - i doubt he would have rolled the dice to get his trophy with pryor. players get suspensions that essentially end their NCAA career, but the higher level take a year off, work for espn and come back the following year. reggie bush cannot have any affiliation with usc anymore but the boosters and agents that handed him the money face no sanctions. i think that discipline would trickle down into programs, and recruitment.

 

until you are willing to clean up the system, i think that any compensation, or cash, or right to sign is a tough topic to seriously discuss.

 

i just dont think the ncaa wants to seriously address this and its likely because to come down hard on the rule breakers would essentially amount to many of the people in charge losing their own livelihood...