Paying players

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
By NATHAN CRABBE
Sun staff writer
January 08. 2007 6:01AM
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ. — University of Florida football coach Urban Meyer didn't want to talk about whether players should share in the wealth of the National Championship Game.

"I'd rather talk about Chris Leak," he said when asked about the subject at a Sunday press conference.

But when Meyer was pressed on the issue, he said players receive money for expenses before bowl games. He finally offered some criticism of a system that doesn't allow fundraisers to help players' families travel to games.

UF players received a total of $300 for meals and other expenses the week they spent in Arizona. As a reward for participating in the game, organizers give them a portable XM satellite radio and a Tourneau watch, gifts that fetch hundreds of dollars in stores.

Meyer, by contrast, received a bonus of $150,000 for appearing in the game and would receive at least another $75,000 for winning. That's on top of more than $1.5 million in salary this year, which is part of a seven-year, $14 million deal.

His players weren't so reluctant to talk about the issue of compensation last week.

Florida defensive tackle Joe Cohen told The Associated Press that he sees a disparity between the big-money Bowl Championship Series and players who scrape by.

"I believe players should be paid, because I'm broke," he said.

Ohio State coach Jim Tressel also dodged a question about the issue at the press conference, saying players "enjoyed a lot of the fruits" provided by game officials. If the treatment officials give the media is any indication, players were wined and dined on someone else's tab.

But a couple great meals hardly compares to the game's payout of $14 million to $17 million per school. The money is divided evenly between the Southeastern Conference and its dozen member schools, which also split $6 million for Louisiana State's appearance in the Sugar Bowl.

Compare this with the situation of Reggie Nelson, UF's star safety whose mother died last month. Fans were afraid to send flowers to her funeral or donate money to cancer research, lest they violate NCAA regulations.

In my hometown of Akron, Ohio, a spaghetti-dinner fundraiser was held last month to help the families of four Ohio State players attend the National Championship.

The mother of OSU tailback Chris Wells called the team's offensive coordinator during the meal, who advised her to have all players leave and their families refuse any money.

NCAA bylaws prevent players from receiving compensation. OSU quarterback Troy Smith accepted $500 from a booster so he was suspended for the 2004 Alamo Bowl and first game of the 2005 season.

There's a lot of righteous indignation when players commit such violations. Even suggesting players should be paid brings sanctimonious talk about the value of the education they're getting and the potential fruits of an NFL career.

Such arguments make me think about Ohio State's last National Championship Game. Tailback Maurice Clarett made a key takeaway of an interception and scored the winning touchdown. The future for him looked bright, so he tried to declare early for the NFL draft.

He was denied that shot, then was a bust when he finally went pro.

After, a downward spiral led him to being arrested for robbery and weapons charges. He was given a 3- to 7-year prison sentence.

Clarett has long been a punching bag on sports-talk radio for attempting to leave early and blowing his chance at success. But I've always taken a different lesson from his story.

A college athlete can win a National Championship for his school, then have an injury or mistakes turn his life into nothing.

Letting athletes share in the wealth when it's being created seems to me like something worth talking about.
Copyright 2006, The Gainesville Sun. The information contained in the Sun Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Gainesville Sun.
Click to expand...
Not everyone can pay their players and hide it as well as the Gators do.I mean, any state that can control the results of a presidential election and allows it's state(through bribes) to be the cocaine import destination of the US is pretty awesome.:)
 
#27
#27
You Pay All Athlethes For Making The University Revenue, However Football Players Pay Should Not Be Equal To The Pay Of Someone Who Bowls. You Compare The Intake From Each Sport.
 
#29
#29
I'm guessing that the Florida players got more than $300 for the week by the way... I'm almost positive that the UT players got a whole lot more than that.
 
#30
#30
I know it's not much, but do players on scholarship get a stipend?
 
#31
#31
I think there is two very legitimate arguments on both sides here, but giving players money to eat and only eat on away games I think is totally fine. But giving them xm radios and watches is a little much, but that could be argued that it is not that much as well. Arguments such as these are not clear cut and black and white so there I think a compromise is the only solution.
 
#32
#32
VolinArizona said:
Signed,
Latrell Sprewell
Click to expand...
:lolabove: nice.

seriously though, title 9 will never allow this to happen. and it was already stated, if paying players were allowed, it would make the playing feild that is alreayd inbalanced even more so. the rich big money schools would dwarf the smaller schools. how to combat that, would be some bizzaro world salary cap for college atheletes. this could be a big mistake.

if we think it's corrupt now, it would be ridiculous if paying players were "legal".

I do think that the NCAA should have a arm of it's organization for special need atheletes, so if a group or some organization wanted to raise money for a kid that has found hard times or wanted to raise travel money for the kid's families etc...that those groups or individulas could apply for such an action and have the NCAA manage it and appropriate the money for the designated purpose. the fact is that some of these kids wouldn't be in college if they didn't have whatever particular sport they played and some of those kids do have legitimate needs, and when a gropu of fans or members of the community are just reaching out, i would think exceptions could be made thru the NCAA.

But personally, there is a huge hypocracy here. the coaches and AD's and boosters etc...stand to gain a lot financially, when in merit, their work force is largely "free". granted they get the education, room and board scholarships, but 40k for an education is an expense that the university absorbs, and absorbs quite well when you consider tuition goes up each year at most major public institutions and only a very small % of that student population is made up of scholarship atheletes.

so i wont' buy that the unviersities are losing money or anything by giving these kids a shcolly. Conversely, the atheletes are provided an opportunity that would not be available to them, that does have a significant value to it, for free.

the NCAA could fix this type of issue, but i do agree that paying players out right is big time slippery slope and should be avoided.
 
#33
#33
When I entered UT as a freshman on an academic scholarship, I not only had my tuition and room and board paid, but also had enough left over to have a little walking around money as well. Not much, but it was enough to buy pizza and take a girl out to a nice restaurant every once in awhile. Surely something kind of a stipend on that level could be worked out for the players. I agree that Title IX would really be a potential problem, though.

(Not that this worked out so great for me. I ended up spending most of it on beer, which didn't do much for my grades. That's all we need happening to football players...)
 
#34
#34
Vercingetorix said:
When I entered UT as a freshman on an academic scholarship, I not only had my tuition and room and board paid, but also had enough left over to have a little walking around money as well. Not much, but it was enough to buy pizza and take a girl out to a nice restaurant every once in awhile. Surely something kind of a stipend on that level could be worked out for the players. I agree that Title IX would really be a potential problem, though.

(Not that this worked out so great for me. I ended up spending most of it on beer, which didn't do much for my grades. That's all we need happening to football players...)
Click to expand...


Ironic, don't you think? The money they gave you for getting good grades you used to drink such that you ended up hurting your grades....
 
#35
#35
ruslt said:
They have the opportunity to go to school for free! that should be payment enough. I had to pay my way working and attending school was hard.
Click to expand...
How many jerseys with your number did people buy? How many people paid $50 a shot to watch you take a test?
 
#36
#36
I said it in the other post. If the players feel so exploited and that their getting a bad shake instead of feeding the machine by going to college be assertive and go to the CFL for 4 years and get paid. There's no reason they can't and CFL teams would love to have these young talents. Quit bitching and do something about it.
 
#37
#37
Business said:
I said it in the other post. If the players feel so exploited and that their getting a bad shake instead of feeding the machine by going to college be assertive and go to the CFL for 4 years and get paid. There's no reason they can't and CFL teams would love to have these young talents. Quit bitching and do something about it.
Click to expand...
now that's kind of a ridiculous notion? i dont' think it's a matter of "feeling exploited" as much as it is a realization that college football is a BIG TIME business these days. In some ways though they are exploited. they are the product. they are what is sold and bought each week. i can certainlly understand their viewpoint. doesn't mean i agree with them, but you can't ignore that in large measure they are "free labor" for these universities.

and when something legitimate comes up from a "need" standpoint, there's the NCAA pointing their finger saying, NO, you can't do that.

it's a very hypocritical system. a booster can't give the kid 5 bucks for lunch, but that same booster can write a $5 million dollar check to the athletic department? huh? who do these rules benefit???
 
#38
#38
In a perfect world it would be easy to pay these kids a % of what they bring in.

In this world and the system that is set up now you know the mountains that would have to be moved to get the wheels spinning on this theory of paying players.

It's easy to say hey pay em' boys. Lets see anyone in here come up with a system of paying while keeping everyone in the universty system happy. The only person here I would even start to listen to is someone like hatvol because he's familar with the law and thats the biggest hurdle to jump.

I'm not naive to the fact that they bring in money. I'm just saying it's never going to happen and if they feel that they should be paid then do something about it instead of whining to the media about how your broke.
 
#39
#39
Business said:
In a perfect world it would be easy to pay these kids a % of what they bring in.

In this world and the system that is set up now you know the mountains that would have to be moved to get the wheels spinning on this theory of paying players.

It's easy to say hey pay em' boys. Lets see anyone in here come up with a system of paying while keeping everyone in the universty system happy. The only person here I would even start to listen to is someone like hatvol because he's familar with the law and thats the biggest hurdle to jump.

I'm not naive to the fact that they bring in money. I'm just saying it's never going to happen and if they feel that they should be paid then do something about it instead of whining to the media about how your broke.
Click to expand...
Holy Crap! LOL...don't let Hat read that....his ego doesn't need it...:)

as far as the law goes, just read title 9. that would about do it...you pay one, you pay all. and no one is going to agree with that. can you imagine women soccer players being paid as much as D1 football players?
 
#40
#40
jakez4ut said:
Holy Crap! LOL...don't let Hat read that....his ego doesn't need it...:)

as far as the law goes, just read title 9. that would about do it...you pay one, you pay all. and no one is going to agree with that. can you imagine women soccer players being paid as much as D1 football players?
Click to expand...
Title IX wouldn't apply if you made the athletes in the revenue producing sports university employees. It would open an entirely different Pandora's Box of issues, but Title IX would be rendered irrelevant.
 
#41
#41
hatvol96 said:
Title IX wouldn't apply if you made the athletes in the revenue producing sports university employees. It would open an entirely different Pandora's Box of issues, but Title IX would be rendered irrelevant.
Click to expand...


title IX will never be gone. It is to popular with the politicos of the world who get to make decisions. Paying players will not happen and would cause more problems than it would solve.
 
#42
#42
VolBeef88 said:
title IX will never be gone. It is to popular with the politicos of the world who get to make decisions. Paying players will not happen and would cause more problems than it would solve.
Click to expand...
It may not be gone, but if football players are university employees, it would be meaningless in the context of this discussion.
 
#43
#43
hatvol96 said:
Title IX wouldn't apply if you made the athletes in the revenue producing sports university employees. It would open an entirely different Pandora's Box of issues, but Title IX would be rendered irrelevant.
Click to expand...
true, but the chance of that happening would be.........? slim and none. so in essence, title 9 will be ever present in this issue, right?
 
#44
#44
jakez4ut said:
true, but the chance of that happening would be.........? slim and none. so in essence, title 9 will be ever present in this issue, right?
Click to expand...
I would agree. The Worker's Comp exposure for football alone makes the "employee' scenario almost impossible to implement.
 
#45
#45
jakez4ut said:
Holy Crap! LOL...don't let Hat read that....his ego doesn't need it...:)

as far as the law goes, just read title 9. that would about do it...you pay one, you pay all. and no one is going to agree with that. can you imagine women soccer players being paid as much as D1 football players?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to feed egos I'm just saying he knows what he's talking about when it comes to law (I assume,this is the internet he could be a 16 year old kid in Newport for all I know)

Also, thats a great point it would be obvious that a Tennessee football player deserved more money (because they bring more in) than a lets say Tennessee Women's Rowing team member but Title 9 says, if what you say is true, you can't do that.

So until Title 9 is rewritten or some new law goes through Washington it will NEVER happen.

I'm not looking at the actual desrvingness (if thats a word) I'm looking at the thesibility.
 
#46
#46
hatvol96 said:
It may not be gone, but if football players are university employees, it would be meaningless in the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...

If they were University employees wouldn't they be allowed to form a union and be able to discuss things like practice times and other petty things to the university.
 
#47
#47
hatvol96 said:
I would agree. The Worker's Comp exposure for football alone makes the "employee' scenario almost impossible to implement.
Click to expand...
didn't even think about that til you brought it up...but can you imagine how that would work??? jeez. i'd hate to the be HR rep for that "company".:birgits_giggle:
 
#48
#48
Business said:
If they were University employees wouldn't they be allowed to form a union and be able to discuss things like practice times and other petty things to the university.
Click to expand...
ok we're definitely out in left feild here...don't think that could happen, if it could, the player's union in the NFL would have dictated similar items.
 
#49
#49
So therefore all things discussed above being true.

If an 18 year old kid wanted to get paid for playing football he would have to go to a professional league like the CFL to get paid. Which is why I said that.
 
#50
#50
jakez4ut said:
ok we're definitely out in left feild here...don't think that could happen, if it could, the player's union in the NFL would have dictated similar items.
Click to expand...
Actually, the NFLPA has negotiated the time and length of min-camps. Those fall under "conditions of employment." Hence, they can be subject to collective bargaining if one side chooses to raise the issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top