Schofield Tweet

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Why would this be a new problem under the new rules? This is a problem that already exists and nothing about the new rule makes this a bigger risk. Bringing stuff above board cleans it up. Paying players makes the less desperate for illicit cash. If a booster tries to say he owns you and then tries to get you throw a game, why on earth would you do it? There is no reason to do it. Turn him into the authorities.

Turn in the guy that is enriching you? Where does that happen? I've had more than one boss lie, cheat, and steal for the company owners.

 

[TheMookieMonster]

If this is truly amateur athletics, and not a business, that’s fine. In that case, I’m in complete support of the NCAA instituting a rule limiting the compensation that coaches and universities receive. I see no reason a coach, like Nick Saban for example, should be making $9 million a year to coach amateurs. Let’s hold everyone to the same standard.

 

[n_huffhines]

They are though. When you said “So?” that was my point. Whether an athlete or biology major takes profit from their image or likeness, their eligibility is exactly the same. Both can still go to school, both can still study whatever they choose, both can pursue whatever career they wish, but neither can play NCAA sports.

You can argue that they both should still be able to play in spite of the profit (and I think that’s a strong argument). But saying “Hey, the biology student can make money” isn’t doing anything but restating the initial complaint.

It's completely useless to point out that a biology major can't play college sports if he accepts $ for his likeness. The opportunity never existed. The point isn't that the NCAA administers its rules unevenly. The point is that the rules shouldn't exist and don't exist under other governing bodies of society, like in academia.

 

[n_huffhines]

He got exposure, coaching, and an opportunity to to play in NBA due to UT. See how that works?

Barnes got exposure, experience, and an opportunity to become an NBA coach. I guess he shouldn't be paid for his college days. See how that works?

 

[zjcvols]

It's completely useless to point out that a biology major can't play college sports if he accepts $ for his likeness. The opportunity never existed. The point isn't that the NCAA administers its rules unevenly. The point is that the rules shouldn't exist and don't exist under other governing bodies of society, like in academia.

A biology student lose doesn’t their right to research grants because they’re an instagram model, for example.

 

[omghulkhands]

Barnes got exposure, experience, and an opportunity to become an NBA coach. I guess he shouldn't be paid for his college days. See how that works?

Relevant

 

[omghulkhands]

A biology student doesn’t their right to research grants because they’re an instagram model, for example.

Really this here is the crux of it. This isn’t a debate about whether universities should pay athletes.

It’s about not restricting them to make money in the free market like a normal capitalist society

 

[Jimmy Football]

It's completely useless to point out that a biology major can't play college sports if he accepts $ for his likeness. The opportunity never existed. The point isn't that the NCAA administers its rules unevenly. The point is that the rules shouldn't exist and don't exist under other governing bodies of society, like in academia.

A. No it isn’t. Some high profile athletes major in hard sciences. See Josh Dobbs. If he took a paying engineering job while he was here, he would have been ineligible to play football. I mostly agree with you that this would be a stupid outcome, but there you go.

B. As to your bolded point, comparing the situation of student athletes to non-athletes is pointless. The biology dept has vastly different concerns than the NCAA.

It’s sort of like lawyers complaining that their ethics rules are different than those of plumbers. They may be correct that a particular ethics rule shouldn’t exist, but pointing out that it’s not applicable to plumbers is a complete non sequitur and doesn’t help their case.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Really this here is the crux of it. This isn’t a debate about whether universities should pay athletes.

It’s about not restricting them to make money in the free market like a normal capitalist society

If it was legit compensation due to their likeness they'd make it in high school. The universities created and own the platform that the SAs would use. They get to make rules for participants. Fox Den homeowners can't convert their homes into bars and restaurants because the HOA put in rules that the home owners have voluntarily agreed to.

 

[BeecherVol]

Really this here is the crux of it. This isn’t a debate about whether universities should pay athletes.

It’s about not restricting them to make money in the free market like a normal capitalist society

Or more simply put, not different from those they sit beside in class. Some of which are on a scholarship as well.

 

[Jimmy Football]

A biology student lose doesn’t their right to research grants because they’re an instagram model, for example.

Goes both ways. There are also certain rules that apply to academic research that do not apply to athletics.

You can argue that the NCAA should allow athletes to profit off their likenesses. It’s a strong argument. But you have to make the case.

It’s irrelevant that academic departments don’t have the same rule. Academic departments aren’t analogous to the NCAA. They have vastly different concerns and priorities.

 

[cardvolfan]

If this is truly amateur athletics, and not a business, that’s fine. In that case, I’m in complete support of the NCAA instituting a rule limiting the compensation that coaches and universities receive. I see no reason a coach, like Nick Saban for example, should be making $9 million a year to coach amateurs. Let’s hold everyone to the same standard.

The Alabama folks would disagree.

 

[n_huffhines]

A. No it isn’t. Some high profile athletes major in hard sciences. See Josh Dobbs. If he took a paying engineering job while he was here, he would have been ineligible to play football. I mostly agree with you that this would be a stupid outcome, but there you go.

Cool. For the purposes of this discussion, it's a complete waste of time to point out that some athletes are in the hard sciences. Thanks for that, tho.

B. As to your bolded point, comparing the situation of student athletes to non-athletes is pointless. The biology dept has vastly different concerns than the NCAA.

If you're ignoring the point, then yeah, it's pointless. The context of the point is that people are saying the student-athletes are getting enough. You making it about the NCAA's concerns (and not the student athlete's concerns) is a total aside.

It’s sort of like lawyers complaining that their ethics rules are different than those of plumbers. They may be correct that a particular ethics rule shouldn’t exist, but pointing out that it’s not applicable to plumbers is a complete non sequitur and doesn’t help their case.

We're not talking about ethics and standards, we are talking about compensation. Nobody is saying athletes shouldn't be held to a higher standard than regular students. We are saying they should be compensated for the fact that they are held to a higher standard, just like lawyers are.

Honestly, I feel like you either have the inability to understand our arguments or you're just trolling, so have a nice day.

 

[MinisterofDef#92]

School administrators are just as guilty of profiting off of the athletes as the NCAA. Also, the inequity against student-athletes reached a point of no return for me once being an athlete became a year-round requirement (spare me the "voluntary" workout BS).

 

[cncchris33]

Let’s say this happens and college sports is still popular and profitable. The SA should still be able to profit off their name and likeness.

Too difficult to legislate the intricacies. If the SAs, especially the higher profile guys, want to profit in the short-term, then they need to take their chances as professionals. It seems like a sizeable short-term gamble unless you are a LeBron, Zion, etc.

 

[UT-Rex]

And that is the problem with this idea. If a kid gets 100K for an endorsement, why are they going to focus on a criminal justice degree? The whole student/athlete model will not survive this.

You're not thinking deep enough here. Saban will be able to reach state-wide and get all the endorsement money he needs. Boosters will make sure of it. What's going to happen is they will be able to Guarantee a high school recruit an endorsement just to come play at AL. Now Kirby comes behind Saban and guarantees them even more money in paid endoresments, even before they have played one snap. Opening the door a crack here is going to create so many unintended consequences they have never considered. I see this getting totally out of control very quickly, and college sports will face it's biggest threat. The political left will begin the campaign to unionize the players and then it's a huge mess.

HOLD ON.

Has anyone discussed how this affects the Transfer Portal?

If a kid has been at Texas for Freshman Year (eg somehow no Booster at Bama picked him up soon enough), and really stands out, then the Bama Booster decides to recruit him with a more lucrative endorsement for Soph Yr:

a. can the Player transfer based on a more lucrative endorsement set for his Sophomore Year ??

If the NCA2 is going to let them "work" like this, then the Player aught to be able to get a new, different "job" his Soph year (even if the new job is in a diff State).

 

[JoAllan]

School administrators are just as guilty of profiting off of the athletes as the NCAA. Also, the inequity against student-athletes reached a point of no return for me once being an athlete became a year-round requirement (spare me the "voluntary" workout BS).

How will this new rule change anything?

This rule would allow for the very few to make money, simply before they turn professional and make more money.

This had NOTHING to do with the student athlete, and has very, very little to do with the college athlete.

Allowing anyone to play professional, let’s anyone have the ability to profit. Also it allows college to remain roughly the same as now and then focus on “real” change.

 

[n_huffhines]

How will this new rule change anything?

This rule would allow for the very few to make money, simply before they turn professional and make more money.

This had NOTHING to do with the student athlete, and has very, very little to do with the college athlete.

Allowing anyone to play professional, let’s anyone have the ability to profit. Also it allows college to remain roughly the same as now and then focus on “real” change.

Allen Iverson wanted to stay in college but went pro early because the final straw was his Mom's kitchen sink fell through the counter and they couldn't afford to fix it. I have no idea why you think only future professionals will benefit from this, or why this wouldn't change behavior among future pros. Allen Iverson might've graduated had he been compensated with money. You don't think Dillon Bates could've fetched $200 for an appearance at a local event? $200 for a few hours of your time can make a big difference for a busy college student. Here's a rare example...what about Rod Wilks? Not a future pro. Could've made some pretty damn good $ while he was a Vol being an attraction at Boomsday. Here's a not so rare example, what about Casey Clausen? College football is littered with big names that will never make $ as pros.

 

[n_huffhines]

Turn in the guy that is enriching you? Where does that happen? I've had more than one boss lie, cheat, and steal for the company owners.

Turn in the guy who enriched (past tense) you. He doesn't own you. He paid you up front or is contractually obligated to keep paying you. If he's asking you to commit a felony and you get to keep your money, why on earth would you not turn him in. Your douchebag bosses are worried about keeping their jobs, which is why they do shady things. The football player is not going to lose his scholly nor the $ he agreed to.

To be clear, we're talking about a college football player who has been paid up front for choosing Tennessee. The booster who paid him comes to him and says "I own you because I gave you paid you for the commitment you've kept, throw the game for me." Then the Tennessee player says, "No."

Now what happens?

 

[Doctrippin]

HOLD ON.

Has anyone discussed how this affects the Transfer Portal?

If a kid has been at Texas for Freshman Year (eg somehow no Booster at Bama picked him up soon enough), and really stands out, then the Bama Booster decides to recruit him with a more lucrative endorsement for Soph Yr:

a. can the Player transfer based on a more lucrative endorsement set for his Sophomore Year ??

If the NCA2 is going to let them "work" like this, then the Player aught to be able to get a new, different "job" his Soph year (even if the new job is in a diff State).

Just enjoy it while it lasts. College sports and especially football may only have 10 years left. This is going to be a disaster, especially when female athletes are getting peanuts in endorsements while males get bank. The woke left is not going to stand for that.

 

[allvol123]

Just enjoy it while it lasts. College sports and especially football may only have 10 years left. This is going to be a disaster, especially when female athletes are getting peanuts in endorsements while males get bank. The woke left is not going to stand for that.

Then they can sit in the corner and suck it. Time for the younger generation to learn about capitalism.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Herschel Walker on Finebaum just made a really good argument AGAINST getting additional money while in college. Stated that getting the education was much more important in college than getting money while there. Also said "money don't make you smart" which I thought was clever and something I'd never heard said before. It was a really good interview I thought. Herschel did throw a little jab at the Vols but not in a terrible way I thought.

 

[BeecherVol]

Herschel Walker on Finebaum just made a really good argument AGAINST getting additional money while in college. Stated that getting the education was much more important in college than getting money while there. Also said "money don't make you smart" which I thought was clever and something I'd never heard said before. It was a really good interview I thought. Herschel did throw a little jab at the Vols but not in a terrible way I thought.

It is if you are trading your education for it.

It's not an either or proposition however. You can make $ while getting an education. Nothing wrong with teaching college kids about priorities.
Instead of educating them on making decisions we try to remove that. Life is full of those. You cant hide from them forever.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

It is if you are trading your education for it.

It's not an either or proposition however. You can make $ while getting an education. Nothing wrong with teaching college kids about priorities.
Instead of educating them on making decisions we try to remove that. Life is full of those. You cant hide from them forever.

He said a lot more than just what I said above. He was dead set against it.

 

[BeecherVol]

He said a lot more than just what I said above. He was dead set against it.

I would hope. That's not very sound reasoning.

I ll take your word for it. I'm not sure that his solid stance makes it any different tho.