end of the ncaa?

[birdog1960]

taylor branch, in the "new yorker" and his new book argues that the ncaa is exploitative and that amateurism in sports is an arbitrary concept developed to benefit the universities and tv networks. espn comments here. what's your opinion?

[KD in CA]

taylor branch, in the "new yorker" and his new book argues that the ncaa is exploitative and that amateurism in sports is an arbitrary concept developed to benefit the universities and tv networks. espn comments here. what's your opinion?

 

 

Frankly, they've done so much to destroy college sports that I would be happy to see everyone follow the Ivy League model. No scholarships and no admissions leeway for athletes -- period.

 

Let the NFL create a minor league if they want, but getting higher education out of the sports business would be fine with me.

[Cugalabanza]

Good article in the current Atlantic on this too. I think it's a good argument. I think eventually, athletes will share some of the revenue, whether it's a stipend or whatever, who knows?

 

Of course, the NCAA has on it’s side all the money and power and history. They’ll do their best to avoid sharing any of that.

[birdog1960]

Good article in the current Atlantic on this too. I think it's a good argument. I think eventually, athletes will share some of the revenue, whether it's a stipend or whatever, who knows?

 

Of course, the NCAA has on it’s side all the money and power and history. They’ll do their best to avoid sharing any of that.

my mistake. it was in the atlantic, not the new yorker. i saw branch on a newshour interview. yesterday night, they had a rebuttal from an ncaa spokesman (ex prez of u nevada reno) he was unimpressive in his arguments. the tide seems against the ncaa.

Edited September 21, 2011 by birdog1960

[DrDawkinstein]

Once these Super Conferences start forming, its only a matter of time until the Conf heads get together and dump the NCAA and create their own governing body.

 

Then they will officially become a semi-pro NFL farm system, and start paying their players.

 

This will also be the way they finally get a playoff system for the championship.

 

Might be 5-10 years out from all that, but it's where we are headed with the college game.

[dib]

D-1 schools are already for all intents and purposes semi-pro.

[birdog1960]

D-1 schools are already for all intents and purposes semi-pro.

except that the players aren't paid...and that's a big exception. they should be sharing in all that revenue. right now, even their measly scholarships are one year contracts. it's a very bad deal for them and the ncaa holds together the house of cards.

[dib]

except that the players aren't paid...and that's a big exception. they should be sharing in all that revenue. right now, even their measly scholarships are one year contracts. it's a very bad deal for them and the ncaa holds together the house of cards.

Arent paid? They're going to school for free, they have Oakleys, Tats, and gold jewelry. I would say somehow or another they're being paid.

[birdog1960]

Arent paid? They're going to school for free, they have Oakleys, Tats, and gold jewelry. I would say somehow or another they're being paid.

the SEC has over a billion $ in revenue and you begrudge them tats and oakelys? and that's the point, it shouldn't have to be "somehow or another"...they should be openly paid for what they produce.

[dib]

the SEC has over a billion $ in revenue and you begrudge them tats and oakelys? and that's the point, it shouldn't have to be "somehow or another"...they should be openly paid for what they produce.

 

they are, when they leave in their Jr. year and go pro

[birdog1960]

they are, when they leave in their Jr. year and go pro

so they're not entitled to any of the revenue they are responsible for producing in college? and how bout the 90+% that never go pro?

[dib]

so they're not entitled to any of the revenue they are responsible for producing in college? and how bout the 90+% that never go pro?

 

They're student atheletes. Their first priority is to obtain an education, not to use the University as a stepping stone/stage to showcase their talents for the pros. Since the University is providing them this educational opportunity for free, I'd say they're being paid. How many of them would be in a University if it were not for their athletic prowess?

[Booster4324]

They're student atheletes. Their first priority is to obtain an education, not to use the University as a stepping stone/stage to showcase their talents for the pros. Since the University is providing them this educational opportunity for free, I'd say they're being paid. How many of them would be in a University if it were not for their athletic prowess?

 

So they all get scholarships? I didn't know that...

[Ramius]

They're student atheletes. Their first priority is to obtain an education, not to use the University as a stepping stone/stage to showcase their talents for the pros. Since the University is providing them this educational opportunity for free, I'd say they're being paid. How many of them would be in a University if it were not for their athletic prowess?

 

Tell the coaches that the athletes first priority is education when they are pulled from class for games and are expected to attend how many countless hours of workouts/practices, etc.

 

The big money D-I sports are shamateurism. And for the record, there are lots of D-1 sports where the players don't get scholarships. Take D-1 baseball for instance. Each team is allowed 11.75 scholarships. Teams usually carry 25-40 players. You do the math.

[birdog1960]

They're student atheletes. Their first priority is to obtain an education, not to use the University as a stepping stone/stage to showcase their talents for the pros. Since the University is providing them this educational opportunity for free, I'd say they're being paid. How many of them would be in a University if it were not for their athletic prowess?

ah, student athletes... a term made up 50 years ago by the ncaa to avoid paying workers comp payments to injured athletes.

 

the educational opportunity is on a year by year basis. get hurt or stop producing and the scholarship can be cut. the argument would be at least a little more convincing if "student athletes" were given guaranteed 4 year scholarships.

 

and who says there first priority is an education? i'll bet if they were polled, many of the elite athletes in the big money sports would say their priority is to make money. the ncaa and the universities attempts at convincing us otherwise doesn't make it so.

[KD in CA]

so they're not entitled to any of the revenue they are responsible for producing in college? and how bout the 90+% that never go pro?

 

I'd say the answer is 'no'. Players are employees, not shareholders. At work you are not entitled to a share of the profits your employer makes as a result of your work, right? People's compensation is generally limited to previously agreed upon salary, commissions, benies, etc. Likewise, college football players have an agreed upon comp of school tuition, room/board and the opportunity to play organized football at a high level. Is that comp fair value for their services? That's another question, but the fact is, that's the system everyone has signed up for.

 

As a comparison, if a graduate research student creates a cure for cancer during their chem lab, who owns the rights and resulting profits; the student or the university?

[erynthered]

I'd say the answer is 'no'. Players are employees, not shareholders. At work you are not entitled to a share of the profits your employer makes as a result of your work, right? People's compensation is generally limited to previously agreed upon salary, commissions, benies, etc. Likewise, college football players have an agreed upon comp of school tuition, room/board and the opportunity to play organized football at a high level. Is that comp fair value for their services? That's another question, but the fact is, that's the system everyone has signed up for.

 

As a comparison, if a graduate research student creates a cure for cancer during their chem lab, who owns the rights and resulting profits; the student or the university?

 

 

Good points.

 

See . Gatorade.

[birdog1960]

I'd say the answer is 'no'. Players are employees, not shareholders. At work you are not entitled to a share of the profits your employer makes as a result of your work, right? People's compensation is generally limited to previously agreed upon salary, commissions, benies, etc. Likewise, college football players have an agreed upon comp of school tuition, room/board and the opportunity to play organized football at a high level. Is that comp fair value for their services? That's another question, but the fact is, that's the system everyone has signed up for.

 

As a comparison, if a graduate research student creates a cure for cancer during their chem lab, who owns the rights and resulting profits; the student or the university?

everyone signed up because there's no alternative in most sports. you're a free market guy right? this system is the farthest thing from a free market and the ncaa aims to keep it that way.

 

re your chemistry analogy (and i worked as a grad student with a research assistantship in chemistry) if you're good enough, you can go right into industry. it's rare to find such a prodigy but it happens. probably not much more rare than an elite athlete of say, cam newton's qualifications.

[dib]

 

if "student athletes" were given guaranteed 4 year scholarships. The valuable ones get a full ride

 

and who says there first priority is an education? It seems yours wasn't

[KD in CA]

everyone signed up because there's no alternative in most sports. you're a free market guy right? this system is the farthest thing from a free market and the ncaa aims to keep it that way.

'Free market' doesn't mean someone else is required to provide you with an avenue to best exploit your skills. It means if college players think they can get a better deal by starting their own minor league football system, they are free to try.

 

 

re your chemistry analogy (and i worked as a grad student with a research assistantship in chemistry) if you're good enough, you can go right into industry. it's rare to find such a prodigy but it happens. probably not much more rare than an elite athlete of say, cam newton's qualifications.

Yes you can go right into industry, but if you chose to stay at the university and have them pay for the lab, your work is theirs, right? (Besides, no one is going into private research after two years of undergrad).

 

But I get your point about college players not being free to join the NFL at any time -- which I agree with; no reason to make kids wait if they are ready. But that's the NFL's policy, not the NCAAs (though they obviously benefit from and suppport the policy).

 

 

Let me again state I'm not necessarily against some type of payment system to the players if someone had one that made sense, but I have a problem with the mentality that the players are creating this wealth and therefore should be treated like shareholders. Alumni and consumers of beer/cars/ED meds provide the money and fans tune in to root for the laundry.