Paying players

#1

BigOrangeAl 1979

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
3,089
Likes
4,123
#1
So it’s pretty obvious this is going to happen and soon so I say they get 700 bucks for each game a even 700 for every player on the roster. Regardless if they are the star QB or WR or defensive tackle every player gets the same amount. What is everybody’s thoughts and feelings on this and how would you pay the players?
 
#2

tnutater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
2,011
Likes
3,543
#2
I would say a lot of players are being paid more than 700 dollars now.
At lot of programs will not be able to be profitable paying out 3/4 million dollars a year in payroll. Football pays the bills for the majority of a schools sports. Somebody other than football will suffer. Let the boosters continue to carry that expense.
 
#4

Pappy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,147
Likes
1,082
#4
I think it's shameful how we have taken advantage of theses athletes. You think Peyton was only worth his scholly?
agreed, but I just wish more of these athletes would actually take advantage of their 'scholly'. I think that the value of their 'scholly' should be figured in with their pay. The IRS will for sure.
 
Likes: onevol74
#5

Raebo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
570
Likes
835
#5
So it’s pretty obvious this is going to happen and soon so I say they get 700 bucks for each game a even 700 for every player on the roster. Regardless if they are the star QB or WR or defensive tackle every player gets the same amount. What is everybody’s thoughts and feelings on this and how would you pay the players?
I think most are already getting close to that amount. $500 a month in Pell grant and about $500 a month (varies from school to school) from some slush fund called Cost of attending college".
 
#6

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
16,139
Likes
18,156
#6
So it’s pretty obvious this is going to happen and soon so I say they get 700 bucks for each game a even 700 for every player on the roster. Regardless if they are the star QB or WR or defensive tackle every player gets the same amount. What is everybody’s thoughts and feelings on this and how would you pay the players?
I don’t have a problem with players getting $ as long as everyone is on the same playing field and all the players receive the same amount . I also don’t have a problem with the NIL stuff, but I think it needs to be capped in some capacity.
 
#7

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#7
I don’t have a problem with players getting $ as long as everyone is on the same playing field and all the players receive the same amount . I also don’t have a problem with the NIL stuff, but I think it needs to be capped in some capacity.
It won't happen. Every player is technically getting paid the same now ($0 outside of scholly money) but it isn't a level playing field.

The rich will continue to get richer (Bama, UGA, OSU, Clemson) and the rest of the peons will fight over the scraps left over. The days of cycling and teams going up and down are over. Unless there is a major power shift or the NCAA decides to actually enforce rules we are currently in the middle of a system where nothing is going to change.
 
#8

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
16,139
Likes
18,156
#8
It won't happen. Every player is technically getting paid the same now ($0 outside of scholly money) but it isn't a level playing field.

The rich will continue to get richer (Bama, UGA, OSU, Clemson) and the rest of the peons will fight over the scraps left over. The days of cycling and teams going up and down are over. Unless there is a major power shift or the NCAA decides to actually enforce rules we are currently in the middle of a system where nothing is going to change.
I agree to an extent, but we’ve been paying guys and it didn’t work out. I don’t think it was because of a lack of talent either. I think it takes the right combination of leadership, talent and administrative cohesion for it all to work. I think we’ve arguably had one of those 1 of those going the past 12 years. Those teams that are at the top all have one goal and are aligned together. We can do that, but there has been too much infighting, which is what you don’t see at Bama, UGA, OU, OSU and Clemson. Hopefully we’ll all get on the same page for once .
 
Likes: wmcovol
#9

OrangeVolMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
729
Likes
1,650
#9
I’m not sure this question has been answered. If you pay a player do they become an employee and thus benefits received can become taxable especially if it’s more than what other employees receive. Thus, scholarship, free tutoring, meals, etc. could become taxable.
For full disclosure I’m against paying players. They are already getting scholarship, meals, tutoring, pell grants, etc. Start paying players and it is just the minor league for NFL instead of being college students like they are suppose to be.
 
#10

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#10
I agree to an extent, but we’ve been paying guys and it didn’t work out. I don’t think it was because of a lack of talent either. I think it takes the right combination of leadership, talent and administrative cohesion for it all to work. I think we’ve arguably had one of those 1 of those going the past 12 years. Those teams that are at the top all have one goal and are aligned together. We can do that, but there has been too much infighting, which is what you don’t see at Bama, UGA, OU, OSU and Clemson. Hopefully we’ll all get on the same page for once .
Don’t disagree, but my point is there is such a stranglehold by the top teams right now that it will never change unless some outside force (major scandal, NCAA coming down, etc) happens. Paying players won’t change that. In fact, it could make it even worse.
 
#11

RDU VOL#14

I’m a Flawed Character
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
16,139
Likes
18,156
#11
Don’t disagree, but my point is there is such a stranglehold by the top teams right now that it will never change unless some outside force (major scandal, NCAA coming down, etc) happens. Paying players won’t change that. In fact, it could make it even worse.
There’s definitely a stranglehold. I am confident that this will change over the course of the next 5 years. It may take a big ncaa scandal like you said, or a shift in scheduling and postseason philosophy, but I do believe something big will happen that will help improve the college football system as a whole. It has to. There is too much $$$ involved for viewers to continue the very gradual decline that has been taking place.
 
#12

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
22,613
Likes
11,754
#12
For full disclosure I’m against paying players. They are already getting scholarship, meals, tutoring, pell grants, etc. Start paying players and it is just the minor league for NFL instead of being college students like they are suppose to be.
If you don't already believe that this is exactly what college football is, then you are deluding yourself. There is a reason the NFL sees no need to run their own minor league.
 
#13

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#13
Don’t disagree, but my point is there is such a stranglehold by the top teams right now that it will never change unless some outside force (major scandal, NCAA coming down, etc) happens. Paying players won’t change that. In fact, it could make it even worse.
College football has always been a sport that at any given point in time is dominated by top teams. This era is no different. In fact one of the dominant powers right now is not a traditional power (Clemson). For their entire history until 2015, Clemson was one of the peons fighting for the scraps that others left over. How'd they get to the top?

I can't help but notice that all "the sport is broken and dominated by top teams" people are fans of bad teams. The game is cyclical. Even traditional powers have long periods of time where they weren't good (Alabama).
 
#14

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#14
College football has always been a sport that at any given point in time is dominated by top teams. This era is no different. In fact one of the dominant powers right now is not a traditional power (Clemson). For their entire history until 2015, Clemson was one of the peons fighting for the scraps that others left over. How'd they get to the top?

I can't help but notice that all "the sport is broken and dominated by top teams" people are fans of bad teams. The game is cyclical. Even traditional powers have long periods of time where they weren't good (Alabama).
This era absolutely is different with the amounts of money being made, playoffs, lack of bite from the NCAA, and now NIL on the horizon. Never before in the history of the sport has it been like this and to say otherwise is just flat wrong. That is what is different.

The game WAS cyclical. It simply isn't anymore outside of a USC style NCAA come down, or Nebraska move to a different conference type event.
 
#15

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#15
This era absolutely is different with the amounts of money being made, playoffs, lack of bite from the NCAA, and now NIL on the horizon. Never before in the history of the sport has it been like this and to say otherwise is just flat wrong. That is what is different.

The game WAS cyclical. It simply isn't anymore outside of a USC style NCAA come down, or Nebraska move to a different conference type event.
The sport has always been a game of haves and have nots, and if you think the NCAA used to come down on everybody equally you're just incredibly naive and pining for a past that didn't even exist.

The game is cyclical. Clemson turned from a mediocre/pretty good program into a juggernaut during this era. How'd they do that? You are saying that something like that is impossible in the current age.
 
#16

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#16
The sport has always been a game of haves and have nots, and if you think the NCAA used to come down on everybody equally you're just incredibly naive and pining for a past that didn't even exist.

The game is cyclical. Clemson turned from a mediocre/pretty good program into a juggernaut during this era. How'd they do that? You are saying that something like that is impossible in the current age.
Not impossible - but a whole hell of a lot harder - absolutely. To my point, it isn't just about what the team/school does either. Clemson - it was not just Clemson pulling themselves up from their own bootstraps. UT plummeting after Kiffin bolted in the middle of the night and FSU dropping off a cliff created the regional and conference vacuum needed. How many players over the years did Clemson land that they wouldn't have if UT hadn't fallen? If Tenn and FSU were still good - does Clemson get to where they are now?

I say it again - it will never cycle again outside of uncontrollable factors facilitating it - which now makes it near impossible - and I would argue actually impossible for the majority of schools.
 
#17

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#17
Not impossible - but a whole hell of a lot harder - absolutely. To my point, it isn't just about what the team/school does either. Clemson - it was not just Clemson pulling themselves up from their own bootstraps. UT plummeting after Kiffin bolted in the middle of the night and FSU dropping off a cliff created the regional and conference vacuum needed. How many players over the years did Clemson land that they wouldn't have if UT hadn't fallen? If Tenn and FSU were still good - does Clemson get to where they are now?

I say it again - it will never cycle again outside of uncontrollable factors facilitating it - which now makes it near impossible - and I would argue actually impossible for the majority of schools.
You're making my point for me. Sports is a zero-sum game. For somebody to win or rise up, somebody else has to fall or come down. The game is cyclical, but nobody pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. Schools like Baylor and TCU have been able to ascend because Texas isn't as dominant.

When dominant powers fall like a USC or Tennessee, others come up and fill the void. When Tennessee and Florida were good in the 90s, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia were not. Hell, LSU did not even become a consistently good program until the 21st Century.
 
Likes: bamawriter
#18

Rockytoptalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
6,311
Likes
2,566
#18
I think it would be better to limit it to making money off their likeness. But, if they do end up with an actual paycheck down the road, I agree that it’s best to make it uniform across the board. Every player needs to be paid the same amount, and ideally an amount that isn’t too high so as not to bankrupt the less profitable athletic departments out there.
 
#19

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#19
You're making my point for me. Sports is a zero-sum game. For somebody to win or rise up, somebody else has to fall or come down. The game is cyclical, but nobody pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. Schools like Baylor and TCU have been able to ascend because Texas isn't as dominant.

When dominant powers fall like a USC or Tennessee, others come up and fill the void. When Tennessee and Florida were good in the 90s, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia were not. Hell, LSU did not even become a consistently good program until the 21st Century.
You are bringing up examples from over 20 years ago. Will these still be the go to examples in the 5 or 10 years from now and it is still the OSU/Bama/Clemson/UGA/OK show?

At what point do we concede the cycle hasn’t happened?
 
#20

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
22,613
Likes
11,754
#20
You are bringing up examples from over 20 years ago. Will these still be the go to examples in the 5 or 10 years from now and it is still the OSU/Bama/Clemson/UGA/OK show?

At what point do we concede the cycle hasn’t happened?
Well, if you want everyone to ignore the recent past and just focus on the last few years, then sure, things won't look very cyclical.
 
#21

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#21
You are bringing up examples from over 20 years ago. Will these still be the go to examples in the 5 or 10 years from now and it is still the OSU/Bama/Clemson/UGA/OK show?

At what point do we concede the cycle hasn’t happened?
The cycles last a long time. Alabama was not good at all for about a decade during the late 90s/early 00s. Clemson's emergence was a long time coming and did not happen overnight. If you're looking for the balance of power to flip every 2-3 years, not only will that not happen but it has never happened that frequently in the history of the sport.

Clemson is an incredible example of what you are saying doesn't happen anymore. They aren't just a good team; they are a juggernaut of a program now. Better than Ohio St, better than Georgia, better than Oklahoma, better than anybody besides Alabama. They not only entered this club but have stayed there for several years now, and they did it in this era that you say is different than how it used to be, and they aren't even a traditional power. If I'm a school like Georgia or Oklahoma, I'm scratching my head and going "How in the hell did Clemson ascend into that spot and not us?"
 
#22

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#22
Well, if you want everyone to ignore the recent past and just focus on the last few years, then sure, things won't look very cyclical.
He wants CFB go to to more like a 3-5 year cycle like professional sports and not have the 10-20 year cycles anymore, even though CFB has always been a sport of decades-long cycles.

Again, it isn't a coincidence that fans of really bad teams are the ones like say stuff like this.
 
Likes: bamawriter
#23

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
20,174
Likes
14,225
#23
The cycles last a long time. Alabama was not good at all for about a decade during the late 90s/early 00s. Clemson's emergence was a long time coming and did not happen overnight. If you're looking for the balance of power to flip every 2-3 years, not only will that not happen but it has never happened that frequently in the history of the sport.

Clemson is an incredible example of what you are saying doesn't happen anymore. They aren't just a good team; they are a juggernaut of a program now. Better than Ohio St, better than Georgia, better than Oklahoma, better than anybody besides Alabama. They not only entered this club but have stayed there for several years now, and they did it in this era that you say is different than how it used to be, and they aren't even a traditional power. If I'm a school like Georgia or Oklahoma, I'm scratching my head and going "How in the hell did Clemson ascend into that spot and not us?"
Clemson is an incredible example because it is so rare, and goes to making my point.

The problem is I view it as a different landscape now and won't be able to make the point for another 10-15 years when we have decades worth of playoff games with the same teams making it the majority of the time. Hell - OSU got in last year and didn't even earn it. But even then, it will be more of the "well Bama wasn't good for a 10 year stretch 30 years ago, and you know, Clemson" type arguments.

The power-sharing is different now. It will be the same teams every year moving forward with some one off teams and ND sprinkled in every few years. It's all but dead on the west coast now. I don't know, Oregon, Washington...maybe? The Pac-12 is a joke now.

Parity is nowhere close to what it has been in the past and is gradually being consolidated even further.
 
#24

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
22,613
Likes
11,754
#24
Hell - OSU got in last year and didn't even earn it.
I see that argument, given that they played so few games. But who deserved it more? Florida had an argument until they literally threw it away against LSU. A&M? They lost to Bama by the exact same score as tOSU. Truth is, there really weren't great options outside of Bama and Clemson.

It's all but dead on the west coast now. I don't know, Oregon, Washington...maybe? The Pac-12 is a joke now.
I'm going to disagree with you there. The Pac-12 isn't an amazing conference, but they are the most competitive, top to bottom, outside of the SEC. The reason their teams don't make the CFP is because no one can get out of there with just 1 loss. OU keeps popping out of the Big XII because the conference sucks. The Big 10 is tOSU, a couple of also-rans, and a whole bunch of dreck. Clemson is a fantastic program, but the ACC is an absolutely abysmal conference. It is easily the worst P5 league.
 
#25

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
16,114
Likes
13,309
#25
Clemson is an incredible example because it is so rare, and goes to making my point.

The problem is I view it as a different landscape now and won't be able to make the point for another 10-15 years when we have decades worth of playoff games with the same teams making it the majority of the time. Hell - OSU got in last year and didn't even earn it. But even then, it will be more of the "well Bama wasn't good for a 10 year stretch 30 years ago, and you know, Clemson" type arguments.

The power-sharing is different now. It will be the same teams every year moving forward with some one off teams and ND sprinkled in every few years. It's all but dead on the west coast now. I don't know, Oregon, Washington...maybe? The Pac-12 is a joke now.

Parity is nowhere close to what it has been in the past and is gradually being consolidated even further.
Where was this era where the power-sharing was so much more equal? When was this era when the power that be turned over once every few years? When was this era when teams did what Clemson has done all the time? When I think of 90s and early 2000s football, I think of 3 programs...Nebraska, Florida St, and Tennessee. All of them suck right now. USC had a great run after those 3 schools did, and they suck right now. LSU emerged, Alabama re-emerged, Ohio St re-emerged, and Clemson came from totally outside the club to join it. If you're looking for widespread turnover every few years, not only are you not going to get it, but it has never happened like that in the entire history of the sport. You keep pining for a version of the past that never existed. College football has always been a dynastic sport.

There is one thing we could do to return to the past...no scholarship limits. That would help parity...right?
 
Likes: RDU VOL#14

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top