SC joins Calif., 2 defy NCAA, allowing college athletes 2b paid?

#2

MontyPython

What to Add to Instant Water
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
452
Likes
441
#2
A stipend to all college athletes -- above and beyond scholarships -- is a good idea, in theory. But, it would probably make sense to just provide a preset, equal amount to all athletes. Nothing crazy. $5K/year seems plenty reasonable.
 
#3

VolBricks

Go Ahead, Make My Day
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
1,555
Likes
2,179
#3
I think that even if the lawsuit came down on the side of athletes and said they should get some sort of pay/stipend, the NCAA would take about 15 years for it to work through all of the bureaucratic red tape before it was finally ratified.
 
#4

volsfan24017

Big Orange Fanatic
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
1,501
Likes
1,218
#4
Paying collegiate athletes is beyond ridiculous! They are already getting a free scholarship! That most people, including myself, can't afford.

If they need money, get a part time job during the off season! Learn how to earn money. A true craft that is being pushed to the wayside. A lot of the kids would probably smoke and drink the free money up anyways!
 
#5

BearCat204

Not too good, not too bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
61,888
Likes
26,930
#5
Paying collegiate athletes is beyond ridiculous! They are already getting a free scholarship! That most people, including myself, can't afford.

If they need money, get a part time job during the off season! Learn how to earn money. A true craft that is being pushed to the wayside. A lot of the kids would probably smoke and drink the free money up anyways!
Good God this is just about as ignorant a take as one could have.
 
#10

BearCat204

Not too good, not too bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
61,888
Likes
26,930
#10
I think college athletics should be for amateurs. The NFL and NBA are free to create farm systems where kids can come out of high school and get paid to play in.
Its hard for me to agree with amateurism when we are talking about a product that is generating millions of dollars off the back of said amateurs. I get the argument, I just disagree when we are talking this kind of money generated. If they could have a farm system like you are saying I do think that would be great but we would really see a poor product IMO than what we are used to seeing.
 
#11

95 Vol Alum

Go Big Vols!
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
43,212
Likes
6,164
#11
The NBA has a development league option for 18 year olds that are deemed "elite" prospects starting this season. I doubt many take the option given the limited visibility, though.

The NFL has little incentive for a farm system. The current "relationship" is fine for them.
 
#12

TUSKtimes

Riding The Wave
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
2,540
Likes
799
#12
Wasn't it Dabo that stated that if the college game goes to free agency, he would retire? SC passes this nonsense the NCAA will solve Clemson football anyway.
 
#13

TUSKtimes

Riding The Wave
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
2,540
Likes
799
#13
Its hard for me to agree with amateurism when we are talking about a product that is generating millions of dollars off the back of said amateurs. I get the argument, I just disagree when we are talking this kind of money generated. If they could have a farm system like you are saying I do think that would be great but we would really see a poor product IMO than what we are used to seeing.

It would take a farm system. Unlike basketball that seems to have a very short learning curve, football is much more like baseball. It takes years more to develop and compete against the bigger and more skilled kids.
 
#15

golfballs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
60,562
Likes
27,794
#15
Its hard for me to agree with amateurism when we are talking about a product that is generating millions of dollars off the back of said amateurs. I get the argument, I just disagree when we are talking this kind of money generated. If they could have a farm system like you are saying I do think that would be great but we would really see a poor product IMO than what we are used to seeing.
They choose to participate. I don’t understand why the NCAA has to change just because a few of the sports they govern are hugely popular. Could it be that the system is one reason it’s so popular? Why change it? If players want to get paid they should have another option. And given the enormous amount of money in professional sports it seems like the pressure should actually be on them to change the rules or develop farm systems. Not on the NCAA
 
#16

golfballs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
60,562
Likes
27,794
#16
That being said the NCAA stands a lot to lose if there were good alternatives for talented athletes. While I don’t agree w paying players I can easily see it happening
 
#17

volfanbill

Praying for Squirrely
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
31,380
Likes
8,129
#17
letting players make money off their likeness and separate from the school stipend is one thing, but are y’all willing to let a lot of the non money making sports vanish from college campuses in order to use football generated monies to play football players?
 
#18

BearCat204

Not too good, not too bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
61,888
Likes
26,930
#18
That being said the NCAA stands a lot to lose if there were good alternatives for talented athletes. While I don’t agree w paying players I can easily see it happening
I'm good with the farm system if they could make it work. If they have a farm system or a league like that, I think that would destroy college football as we know it. JMO
 
#19

BearCat204

Not too good, not too bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
61,888
Likes
26,930
#19
letting players make money off their likeness and separate from the school stipend is one thing, but are y’all willing to let a lot of the non money making sports vanish from college campuses in order to use football generated monies to play football players?
I get that side of the argument and somewhat agree. The issue I have is that there arent 100k showing up to watch a lacrosse team. Letting players cash in on their likeness would be a great compromise IMO.
 
#20

TheDeeble

Guy on the Couch
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,274
Likes
2,390
#20
I get that side of the argument and somewhat agree. The issue I have is that there arent 100k showing up to watch a lacrosse team. Letting players cash in on their likeness would be a great compromise IMO.
What restrictions would there be to avoid buying recruits? I mean, letting players make money off their likeness sounds good and fair, but it is opening the door to boosters just outright buying recruits. I'm sure it happens now, but they have to be secretive and there are punishments coming when they are caught.

I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but is that something you would be ok with if that happens?
 
Last edited:
#21

LSU-SIU

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,460
Likes
1,264
#21
I read part of the article and just as I suspected this is being pushed by clueless Democrats. Regardless of where you stand on the issue this isn't going to go well.
Actually, its better than the alternative, they just enforce existing law, and start indicting people. The NCAA better wise up, they've had a few years to ponder the eventual outcome. There is really no stance on the issue, the NCAA/colleges/media companies want a free pass as to existing law. However someone views it - these sports are generally improperly acting under existing State and Federal law. Eventually, some Attorney General is just going to start indicting people I suspect. They are either in violation of anti-trust laws or employments laws, and in some cases both. I don't necessarily see the requirement to pay players but the NCAA/colleges should not be restricting the players from receiving money from outside sources as a group. They want their cake and eat it as well.

California to me is being very nice at the moment, what they (NCAA/colleges) have been doing is actually criminal conduct, imo.
 
Last edited:
#22

95 Vol Alum

Go Big Vols!
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
43,212
Likes
6,164
#22
They choose to participate. I don’t understand why the NCAA has to change just because a few of the sports they govern are hugely popular. Could it be that the system is one reason it’s so popular? Why change it? If players want to get paid they should have another option. And given the enormous amount of money in professional sports it seems like the pressure should actually be on them to change the rules or develop farm systems. Not on the NCAA
Why would the NFL feel any pressure to institute a farm system? They have one. A farm system requires capital, something the players wanting to make money off their likeness don't have and Pro sports aren't willing to spend given the low return vs the free system today.

This is most certainly an issue for the NCAA/Universities - they, and the coaches who can actually personally market their likeness, are the ones making all the money off of cheap labor with no competition.
 
#23

BearCat204

Not too good, not too bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
61,888
Likes
26,930
#23
What restrictions would there be to avoid buying recruits? I mean, letting players make money off their likeness sounds good and fair, but it is opening the door to boosters just outright buying recruits. I'm sure it happens now, but they have to be secretive and there are punishments coming when they are caught.

I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, but is that something you would be ok with if that happens?
I honestly don't have an answer for that, but I also don't like the way it is right now
 
#24

LSU-SIU

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,460
Likes
1,264
#24
I get that side of the argument and somewhat agree. The issue I have is that there arent 100k showing up to watch a lacrosse team. Letting players cash in on their likeness would be a great compromise IMO.
Yes and no. The colleges should never be getting together to ban college players from getting any type of payments whether from specific schools or say 3rd parties booster, etc. Now, if an individual school on its own wants to ban payments that might be okay, as long as nobody (State/Federal) determines some of these players are "employees". Generally speaking, I see nothing wrong with individual schools setting their own requirements to be a student athlete, generally speaking, the issue is when they get together with other schools and start determining those rules as a group.

There might not be too many issues as to some guidelines as to who is able to be eligible, meaning players can transfer and such or time period to sit out.... but obviously the no payments is a way of keeping their business going for maximum margin.

The issue is, if they can't ban players than the business model goes bye bye - its a business but they want to pretend there is a statutory definition of "student athlete", there really is no such thing.
 
Last edited:
#25

golfballs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
60,562
Likes
27,794
#25
Why would the NFL feel any pressure to institute a farm system? They have one. A farm system requires capital, something the players wanting to make money off their likeness don't have and Pro sports aren't willing to spend given the low return vs the free system today.

This is most certainly an issue for the NCAA/Universities - they, and the coaches who can actually personally market their likeness, are the ones making all the money off of cheap labor with no competition.
Its a system college players are willing participants in. If they don’t like it they shouldn’t participate
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top