Paying college athletes

#1
HooahVol

HooahVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
4,088
#1
If I am reading it right Condeleeza Rice's commission released today did not change much with paying players.

I have been thinking about this. A student can go to school on a band scholarship and still make money on the weekends playing in a band at the local bar. An artist can get a full scholarship and still sell his art at the local art fare. An athlete however can not profit at all from his talent. No money for autographs. No money from video games for their likeness. No money on shirts with his name on it. I think if a kid is good enough to profit on his talent he should have that right. If EA Sports wants to pay them royalties for using their likeness in the next NCAA game, fine. This way the kid can profit but it is not the University paying them. And don't even start with the amateur vs professional argument. Our NBA guys play in the "amateur" Olympics. Since I am finally griping on this I also think kids should be allowed to return if they go undrafted. Why put all the risk on the kid?
 
#2
#2
The baseball model will work for basketball because it works for baseball. It's up to the NBA, who invented the one and done, to make it so.
 
#3
#3
College players are going to be paid one day, and they will be paid how you describe (they'll be allowed to sell their likeness).

There is no workable system whereby they could be paid by their school, the conference they play in, or the NCAA. The ironic thing about that is that the people who complain about football and basketball players not getting paid would actually complain if they got paid too. There'd be far more money to pay football players at big schools with than there are football players at small schools. There isn't enough money to pay the vast majority of athletes. There would be belly-aching that the football players make more money than the women's cross country team, for example. I think the environment is such that you couldn't have a system where just some college athletes get paid - it would be decried as "unfair" and the rich getting richer (i.e., big schools have more money, which means they pay people, which means they recruit the best players).

Hence the "sell your likeness" idea. Sure, the football star is going to be able to sell his likeness for far more money than the cross country runner. But there's nothing preventing the cross country runner from selling their likeness either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
Most likely coaches will funnel money to a sham business then the business would buy the likeness.
 
#5
#5
Or they could just keep it how it is.... And still get paid... But it is illegal soooooo there's that
 
#6
#6
vols-1 said:
Most likely coaches will funnel money to a sham business then the business would buy the likeness.
Click to expand...

There will always, always be money under the table in college sports. Even if the schools themselves are cutting checks to players.

Say football players started getting $1000 a game straight from the school's athletic department. Boosters could and would still come along with money handshakes to sweeten the pot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
As a fan, I feel like I'm missing out on a lot because they won't pay the players:

- they stopped making EA Sports games (and we never had the real names of players when it did exist).

- Tennessee is one of the highest revenue universities, so paying players would give us a huge advantage over several teams that have had a lot more success than us in recent history

- in that same vein, how much is Bama going to pay their 4th DT? He could be starting for us, and we would be willing to pay him more than they would. That levels things vs. dealing with 85-man amateur rosters and a finite number of quality players.

- the guys at FCS and bad FBS schools don't belong on the same field as power houses. separating paid college teams from amateur would put an end to these dog **** games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
n_huffhines said:
- the guys at FCS and bad FBS schools don't belong on the same field as power houses. separating paid college teams from amateur would put an end to these dog **** games.
Click to expand...

disagree. Paying players will ruin college athletics as we know it. Just let the athletes get jobs on their own. The better players will get the better jobs and thus make more money. Let them sell their autographs and what not for as much as demand will allow. If JG gets $50 for an autograph and WMc get $1.50..... so be it!
If Trey Smith gets a TV commercial for a car dealership in Knoxville for $10,000 and J. Oatsval gets one in Clarksville for $500....that's fine.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9
#9
peaygolf said:
disagree. Paying players will ruin college athletics as we know it. Just let the athletes get jobs on their own. The better players will get the better jobs and thus make more money. Let them sell their autographs and what not for as much as demand will allow. If JG gets $50 for an autograph and WMc get $1.50..... so be it!
If Trey Smith gets a TV commercial for a car dealership in Knoxville for $10,000 and J. Oatsval gets one in Clarksville for $500....that's fine.
Click to expand...

Why? Why does it matter where the money comes from if they're getting paid either way?

College football has had serious flaws for a long time. Not sure keeping things as we know them is desirable.
 
#10
#10
n_huffhines said:
Why? Why does it matter where the money comes from if they're getting paid either way?

College football has had serious flaws for a long time. Not sure keeping things as we know them is desirable.
Click to expand...

JMO, but who gets paid how much. We already have the haves/havenots. Schools paying players will just allow those haves to fork out more money to get the players. If you want to "cap" the money per player, you will still have under the table money. How would you pay players that get injured? One player has a better game or two and demands to be payed more, or even holds out for more money.

Let the free market demand dictate it. Allow the players to find their own jobs. Don't keep it like the present, just let each player get what they can, just not from the school or boosters.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
peaygolf said:
JMO, but who gets paid how much. We already have the haves/havenots. Schools paying players will just allow those haves to fork out more money to get the players. If you want to "cap" the money per player, you will still have under the table money. How would you pay players that get injured? One player has a better game or two and demands to be payed more, or even holds out for more money.

Let the free market demand dictate it. Allow the players to find their own jobs. Don't keep it like the present, just let each player get what they can, just not from the school or boosters.
Click to expand...

Clearly we already have haves and have nots, so it wouldn't "ruin CFB as we know it". They'll figure ways to deal with injuries, not sure why that's a concern. Holdouts rarely happen in the NFL, that's only a minor concern. You don't want to be the guy holding out when NFL money is on the line. That would be a great way to discourage future earnings.

Letting the free market dictate it would mean paying the players directly for their services.
 
#12
#12
I'm not OK with pay to paly in general as most of us know it exists illegally.

I am in favor of an athlete making money outside the program based on their talents. Selling likenesses, autographs, etc. The point was made by the OP as compared to band students, art majors, etc., where it is perfectly legal for them to make money off their talents.

I am in favor of supplementing a controlled monthly stipend since commitments to practice and such limit their ability to seek part time work. Food and personal allowance. This would have to be a set amount and controlled, but would still be violated under the table.

there is no real solution that would not still be supplemented under the table. It is what it is, and no directive on paying athletes will ever eliminate offering/taking benefits on the low.
 
#13
#13
GVF said:
I'm not OK with pay to paly in general as most of us know it exists illegally.

I am in favor of an athlete making money outside the program based on their talents. Selling likenesses, autographs, etc. The point was made by the OP as compared to band students, art majors, etc., where it is perfectly legal for them to make money off their talents.

I am in favor of supplementing a controlled monthly stipend since commitments to practice and such limit their ability to seek part time work. Food and personal allowance. This would have to be a set amount and controlled, but would still be violated under the table.

there is no real solution that would not still be supplemented under the table. It is what it is, and no directive on paying athletes will ever eliminate offering/taking benefits on the low.
Click to expand...

But why all this rigmarole? Why not just pay them directly. What difference does it make to you?
 
#14
#14
Hawkeye4588 said:
If I am reading it right Condeleeza Rice's commission released today did not change much with paying players.

I have been thinking about this. A student can go to school on a band scholarship and still make money on the weekends playing in a band at the local bar. An artist can get a full scholarship and still sell his art at the local art fare. An athlete however can not profit at all from his talent. No money for autographs. No money from video games for their likeness. No money on shirts with his name on it. I think if a kid is good enough to profit on his talent he should have that right. If EA Sports wants to pay them royalties for using their likeness in the next NCAA game, fine. This way the kid can profit but it is not the University paying them. And don't even start with the amateur vs professional argument. Our NBA guys play in the "amateur" Olympics. Since I am finally griping on this I also think kids should be allowed to return if they go undrafted. Why put all the risk on the kid?
Click to expand...

They don't need to start paying players because that would be the end of college athletics. Instead they need to cap coaching salaries, ticket prices and athletic donations to a reasonable level. This would mean cutting by at least 1/2 and holding there. The bulk of TV revenues should go to the academic budget not the athletic side. This would put things back into perspective and save college sports.
 
#15
#15
n_huffhines said:
But why all this rigmarole? Why not just pay them directly. What difference does it make to you?
Click to expand...

The model that you are advocating for (have schools or conferences pay the players directly) I don't think is actually ever going to happen. I don't think the relatively small number of schools whose football/basketball teams actually make money are going to break away from the NCAA and create their own league of professional, minor league football players.

Such a model would also be really bad for the "big name" schools whose athletic departments break even, or even lose money. I don't even think a school like Clemson, which has been on a hell of a run with football lately, would like it and would probably fight it. Our athletic department brought in nearly $40m more than theirs did in 2016, and Texas A&M brought in almost $100m more. Just imagine how much more both schools will bring in when their football teams are good again. Schools paying players puts a school like Clemson, which is a big name and has a lot of clout, at a competitive disadvantage. I agree - it would be good for a school like Tennessee.

A "get paid by selling your likeness" model could work within the existing NCAA framework. Perhaps a superleague separate from the NCAA will form eventually, but that's probably a long time away. Changes that big occur gradually.
 
#16
#16
n_huffhines said:
But why all this rigmarole? Why not just pay them directly. What difference does it make to you?
Click to expand...

I think it makes sense to have them earn outside the system. Schools paying male players seems destined to wander into Title IX territory.
 
#19
#19
n_huffhines said:
But why all this rigmarole? Why not just pay them directly. What difference does it make to you?
Click to expand...

UT gives one of the biggest stipends of any college football program, I believe it was 4 or 5 thousand a semester. I could be wrong about the numbers, it's been a while since I read that.
 
#20
#20
Play the players and increase the Scholarship limit to 125 per school with, Recreate The power 5 conference with traditional powers breaking away and creating their own league with its own system playoff system. A total of 40 teams Better football
 
#21
#21
Here is my beef. The UTAD generated 145.7 million dollars last year and scholarships were listed as a 14 million dollar expense. Works out to a little over 10% of the revenue.

I've been watching this for sometime, it looks like the goal is to keep scholarships at around 10% of the budget.

That's a pretty small slice of the pie imo.

Title IX became law in 1972, 12 years before the Supreme Court would end the NCAA's hold on controlling the televising of football and handing it over to the schools/conferences. Even in 1984, I doubt anyone would imagine the kind of revenue that is now being made.

The whole system is out of date. For roughly 2 or 3 % more of the revenues, you could give every athlete on campus a full ride and do away with silly partials driven by Title IX.

The whole thing is a bit ridiculous. But hey, if you gotta pay 3 athletic directors at a time...:loco:
 
#22
#22
Biopsyman said:
Play the players and increase the Scholarship limit to 125 per school with, Recreate The power 5 conference with traditional powers breaking away and creating their own league with its own system playoff system. A total of 40 teams Better football
Click to expand...

There are 64 power 5 teams.....65 when you count ND.
What 25 are you kicking out?

TCU, Oregon, Stanford are not "traditional powers". Are they out?
 
#24
#24
Biopsyman said:
Yes I would recreate The conferences
Click to expand...

Not being an a$$, but I would really like to hear how you would come up with your top 40 and who they would be? You might change my mind.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
The only fair and equitable solution for the football players is some type of increased stipend. Nothing will be doable apart from a controlled and closely monitored increase in spending money. Otherwise the leeches, sharks, roaches will simply smother the sport.

Given the sobering stat that only 2% of college seniors make it to the NFL with various degrees of financial success, all these visions of grandeur that players and fans have for the promise land is ridiculous. For all you high school seniors thinking on the NFL if you do the math your percentage of making it is about 0.09%. That's the kind of numbers that would have me studying a lot harder for that degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top