To what extent do you care about the "college" part of collge football?

[Catbone]

To be honest all football and basically no college would be the best thing to focus on right now.










Jk

 

[Vercingetorix]

Just to further expound upon SaintLouisVol’s remarks, one can make a defensible argument that baseball was the one sport that got it right from the outset; their minor league system eliminates any perceived conflict with respect to the amateur status of athletes. College football, on the other hand, long predated the advent of the NFL. When fledgling professional football teams began to pop up on the athletic landscape, it was regarded, at the time, as a rather seedy enterprise. It was not until athletes the caliber of Red Grange decided to join “the League” that professional football began to gain some sense of public respect. I believe that it would be safe to say that, as a spectator sport in the United States, college football was, at that time, surpassed only by major league baseball. The bottom line is that college football existed as a truly amateur enterprise for decades and has been deeply entrenched to this day with a code of “pseudo-amateurism” that should not be jettisoned. If there is any sense of exploitation in terms of the relationship between universities and college football players, let’s call a spade a spade and acknowledge the fact that it is a mutually reciprocal relationship.

Slaveowners used to talk about how good slavery was for their slaves because it was so much nicer over here than it was in Africa. Plus they'd learned about Jesus too.

The "mutually reciprocal relationship" you describe makes sense in lower-division football where there's very little money involved. It's hard to describe the relationship between colleges and NFL prospects as "mutual" in any meaningful sense when A) the players have no choice but to work for free for a college because it's the only route to the NFL, and B) everyone involved in the sport makes money except the players themselves.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Slaveowners used to talk about how good slavery was for their slaves because it was so much nicer over here than it was in Africa. Plus they'd learned about Jesus too.

The "mutually reciprocal relationship" you describe makes sense in lower-division football where there's very little money involved. It's hard to describe the relationship between colleges and NFL prospects as "mutual" in any meaningful sense when A) the players have no choice but to work for free for a college because it's the only route to the NFL, and B) everyone involved in the sport makes money except the players themselves.

As I stated initially, one can make the argument that baseball eliminated, early in its history, all pretense of conflict with amateurism considerations by establishing a parallel track for paid player development. Football, however, was, practically from its inception, inextricably linked to universities. The raison de'etre for such institutions has been, and remains, HIGHER EDUCATION. As much as we all love them, and as much as intercollegiate athletics on this level can be described as the university's "front porch," universities can exist without athletics. It wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable a "landcsape," but the converse of the previous statement is not true.

With respect to characterizations of the existing system as a "planatation mentality," I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. Like another poster who contributed to this thread, I have no opposition to a developmental league that operates on a pay-for-play basis but believe that, if implemented, it should exist independently of college football. You can certainly make a compelling argument that the existing system is one-sided. Universities, however, do not exist for the express purpose of training athletes for careers in professional sports; that is an ancillary benefit to athletes. As for the "mutual reciprocity" of the system, we all know that many athletes pay lip service to academics in quest of an NFL career. I don't know about you but I consider that a form of exploitation, particularly when we (or any other university) make exceptions to admission standards in order to procure their "services." I personally have no opposition to athletes receiving need-based financial aid (e.g. Pell Grants) but I am adamently opposed to paying players.

Yes, I am a hardcore academic but I am also an equally hardcore Tennessee fan, one who was proud to have had my office in Neyland Stadium throughout my grad school career.

 

[Vercingetorix]

With respect to characterizations of the existing system as a "planatation mentality," I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. Like another poster who contributed to this thread, I have no opposition to a developmental league that operates on a pay-for-play basis but believe that, if implemented, it should exist independently of college football. You can certainly make a compelling argument that the existing system is one-sided. Universities, however, do not exist for the express purpose of training athletes for careers in professional sports; that is an ancillary benefit to athletes. As for the "mutual reciprocity" of the system, we all know that many athletes pay lip service to academics in quest of an NFL career. I don't know about you but I consider that a form of exploitation, particularly when we (or any other university) make exceptions to admission standards in order to procure their "services." I personally have no opposition to athletes receiving need-based financial aid (e.g. Pell Grants) but I am adamently opposed to paying players.

This is the most bizarre usage of the term "exploitation" that I've ever heard. Jadeveon Clowney has no use for and probably no interest in a college education. Because he couldn't pursue his lucrative pro career unless he goes through the pretense of being a college student, however, he picked a school out of the dozens that were clamoring to let him "exploit" them. And in return for three years' minimal cost of room, board, books, etc., Clowney helps generate millions of dollars for the school, his coaches, the TV networks. Other people are allowed to make money of his name and likeness, but Clowney himself is not. How exactly is he "exploiting" South Carolina?

 

[Volosaurus rex]

The problem is that we're turning a blind eye to the money these kids are generating. At the time you are discussing, the coach of the football team did not make more than the President of the University. In fact the coach, didn't make as much as many professors.

Look, the athletic department "invests" 2-4.5 Million depending on the amount of the scholarships to the 85 football players. So even on it's face we can see an inequity. We are paying 6.2 million to 11 men to coach 85 men on the field and in the weight room. That doesn't include another 3.56 million in salaries to the non-revenue sports and I'm not including Mens or Womens basketball, if they don't break even then the figure goes up quite a bit. Dave Hart makes $775,000, combined with rest of his executive staff it totals $1.78 Million dollars, the Administrative staff for those 8 guys make $1.49 Million. That alone comes to 13 Million and some change. That sounds like a lot, but compared to TV rights, and corporate deals with partners like IMG, plus the SEC deals...We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and you can't go back.

I remember Dooley said during his first year that the program made 100 million dollars the year before. That's a pretty good return on a 2 - 5 million investment.

The President of UT makes $420,000, less than the current baseball coach, half as much as the AD and he's not even in the same Universe with the head football coach. It's been flipped on it's head due to the money from football. To say "that's all the players get" is hard to hear if you appreciate a degree and know it's value. Still look what everybody else gets and it's hard not to feel like they deserve something more.

If the football coach makes 5 times what the president of the university makes, what does that say about what we value?

Excellent data and I don't disagree with anything that you said. The most telling observation is your final rhetorical question. I will gladly answer that for you. Those financial discrepancies indicate that, like the Roman Empire in its decadent latter stages, we, as a society, place an inordinately high value, indeed one could argue an obscenely high value, on entertainment and entertainers, whether it be in the form of college and professional athletes, singers or actors.

In the greater scheme of things, entertainment offers a diversion from our everyday lives. Ultimately, physicians and educators make a far greater and more enduring contribution to society but, as you observed, they are not compensated in a manner commenserate to those contributions.

As I stated in my previous post, I am not opposed to a pay-for-play developmental league nor am I opposed to student-athletes also receiving need-based financial aid (e.g. Pell grants) but I am opposed to paying athletes for playing football. The financial compensation and tuition waivers I received from UT in the form of teaching assistantships and research assistantships were for services rendered as a student-employee. I don't know how the legal minds who also contribute to this forum would construe them, but are recipients of athletic scholarships technically employees of the university?

 

[Vercingetorix]

Football players generally aren't the ones paying "lip service" to academics. The schools themselves are.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Excellent data and I don't disagree with anything that you said. The most telling observation is your final rhetorical question. I will gladly answer that for you. Those financial discrepancies indicate that, like the Roman Empire in its decadent latter stages, we, as a society, place an inordinately high value, indeed one could argue an obscenely high value, on entertainment and entertainers, whether it be in the form of college and professional athletes, singers or actors.

In the greater scheme of things, entertainment offers a diversion from our everyday lives. Ultimately, physicians and educators make a far greater and more enduring contribution to society but, as you observed, they are not compensated in a manner commenserate to those contributions.

As I stated in my previous post, I am not opposed to a pay-for-play developmental league nor am I opposed to student-athletes also receiving need-based financial aid (e.g. Pell grants) but I am opposed to paying athletes for playing football. The financial compensation and tuition waivers I received from UT in the form of teaching assistantships and research assistantships were for services rendered as a student-employee. I don't know how the legal minds who also contribute to this forum would construe them, but are recipients of athletic scholarships technically employees of the university?

Has there ever been a significant, enduring human society in which people have been compensated according to what they are "actually" (in some theoretical, disembodied, objective sense) worth? Human attention has always been one of our most valuable currencies, and those who can command it are always compensated accordingly. What you're describing isn't some trait of societies in decline; it's universal in any greater-than-subsistence-level society. Modern technology makes it possible for entertainers to command exponentially wider levels of attention in a society, and as a result they're compensated vastly more. Decadence has nothing to do with it.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

This is the most bizarre usage of the term "exploitation" that I've ever heard. Jadeveon Clowney has no use for and probably no interest in a college education. Because he couldn't pursue his lucrative pro career unless he goes through the pretense of being a college student, however, he picked a school out of the dozens that were clamoring to let him "exploit" them. And in return for three years' minimal cost of room, board, books, etc., Clowney helps generate millions of dollars for the school, his coaches, the TV networks. Other people are allowed to make money of his name and likeness, but Clowney himself is not. How exactly is he "exploiting" South Carolina?

I don't know anything about Clowney's specific situation, so I will answer that question as a hypothetical scenario. Let us assume that a particular student-athlete, based on his academic transcript, would never be considered for an academic scholarship. He receives an athletic scholarship and, perhaps, has received differential consideration in terms of admissions standards, to an institution of higher education, one that he chooses to use primarily, if not exclusively, as a training ground for the NFL. For the sake of argument, he has absolutely no interest in academics above and beyond maintaining his eligibility.

You can argue all you want about relative power differentials between the institution and the student-athlete but the aforementioned behavior qualifies in my book as a form of using, indeed exploiting, the university for something other than its primary purpose, i.e. education. If you disagree profoundly, so be it.

 

[joevol320]

I could honestly care less. If the player cares about his education then great. If they don't then whatever, their choice.

exactly, they have all the chances to do well no matter what they major in. i want them to do well in school but i want them to dominate football.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

exactly, they have all the chances to do well no matter what they major in. i want them to do well in school but i want them to dominate football.

I believe that this is the one point upon which we can all agree.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I don't know anything about Clowney's specific situation, so I will answer that question as a hypothetical scenario. Let us assume that a particular student-athlete, based on his academic transcript, would never be considered for an academic scholarship. He receives an athletic scholarship and, perhaps, has received differential consideration in terms of admissions standards, to an institution of higher education, one that he chooses to use primarily, if not exclusively, as a training ground for the NFL. For the sake of argument, he has absolutely no interest in academics above and beyond maintaining his eligibility.

You can argue all you want about relative power differentials between the institution and the student-athlete but the aforementioned behavior qualifies in my book as a form of using, indeed exploiting, the university for something other than its primary purpose, i.e. education. If you disagree profoundly, so be it.

But the schools themselves are jumping up and down begging for players to choose them for reasons that have nothing to do with education. They're the ones who admit players who can barely read. They're the ones who blur the lines between education and athletics. It's nonsense to argue that the players are "exploiting" the relationship when the schools are so eager to undermine their putative primary purpose all by themselves.

 

[vol66]

Excellent data and I don't disagree with anything that you said. The most telling observation is your final rhetorical question. I will gladly answer that for you. Those financial discrepancies indicate that, like the Roman Empire in its decadent latter stages, we, as a society, place an inordinately high value, indeed one could argue an obscenely high value, on entertainment and entertainers, whether it be in the form of college and professional athletes, singers or actors.

Professional athletes, singers and actors have agents and contracts. They have unions, collective bargining. They get paid alot of money because that is what the record label, movie studio or sports franchise is willing to pay them for their services. They are stars because of their exposure. Olympic athletes, X-game athletes have the same and they use their high profiles to get endorsements to help pay for their training.

In the college game, by this theory we're going to the stadium or court to watch the coach, the AD, the team doctor and trainer. If we're basing star power on pay we're definitely not going to see the PLAYERS. It's ridiculous. Maybe the biggest star of all, Jimmy Sexton will be there, but someone will have to point him out to me because as big as he is in college sports, I don't know what he looks like. Wait, a bigger star might be Mike Slive, better yet maybe NCAA Prez. Emmert will be there. Autograph line will be redonkuliiiiiiiiiiiis.

The NCAA and by association school presidents are artificially deflating the value of the student athletes and a judge has agreed at least on merit.

In the greater scheme of things, entertainment offers a diversion from our everyday lives. Ultimately, physicians and educators make a far greater and more enduring contribution to society but, as you observed, they are not compensated in a manner commenserate to those contributions.

As I stated in my previous post, I am not opposed to a pay-for-play developmental league nor am I opposed to student-athletes also receiving need-based financial aid (e.g. Pell grants) but I am opposed to paying athletes for playing football. The financial compensation and tuition waivers I received from UT in the form of teaching assistantships and research assistantships were for services rendered as a student-employee. I don't know how the legal minds who also contribute to this forum would construe them, but are recipients of athletic scholarships technically employees of the university?

I'm no legal scholar, but Emmert has said over and over that athletes ARE NOT Employees. The reasons for this are financial.

Think about workman's comp for example.

 

[vol66]

You can argue all you want about relative power differentials between the institution and the student-athlete but the aforementioned behavior qualifies in my book as a form of using, indeed exploiting, the university for something other than its primary purpose, i.e. education. If you disagree profoundly, so be it.

I can see why you look at it that way, but the kid in your scenario has no other options and that's not all the fault of the University, the NFL bars players from entering the NFL for 3 years after high school. The two combined leave almost no choices for a kid in your scenario. It's the system the NCAA, College Presidents, Coaches, agents and NFL folks set up. This system, as I've said before...If the kids figured it out and are exploiting the system for their benefit...that's okay with me because the adults are setting the example and that is...we want to win. We will allow athletes into our college who would never get in otherwise...we want the money, we want the exposure tv brings to the university, we'll do anything we have to do, pay anything we have to pay to have it. That's the message and nowhere in all of that is education. How can I say this? Look at the graduation rates, that tells me all I need to know about the priorties of the universities and coaches.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I can see why you look at it that way, but the kid in your scenario has no other options and that's not all the fault of the University, the NFL bars players from entering the NFL for 3 years after high school. The two combined leave almost no choices for a kid in your scenario. It's the system the NCAA, College Presidents, Coaches, agents and NFL folks set up. This system, as I've said before...If the kids figured it out and are exploiting the system for their benefit...that's okay with me because the adults are setting the example and that is...we want to win. We will allow athletes into our college who would never get in otherwise...we want the money, we want the exposure tv brings to the university, we'll do anything we have to do, pay anything we have to pay to have it. That's the message and nowhere in all of that is education. How can I say this? Look at the graduation rates, that tells me all I need to know about the priorties of the universities and coaches.

I do not disagree with you in the slightest. I am strangely reminded of the Jan Kemp scandal at Georgia. There was something fundamentally wrong when a Georgia athletic department official admonished her with the warning, "Who do you think is more important here, you (a professor) or a football player?" In this case, we are talking about players who were having difficulty passing a remedial course in their natal language (English), for crying out loud, and the implicit message was that athletics are infinitely more important than academics, particularly at institutions of higher learning.

The disparate historical trajectories of football and baseball, as American sports, have contributed significantly to the conundrum that we are now dissecting. The infrastructure for a player-development system (i.e. minor leagues) was established early in baseball and it remained free of university control. Football, on the other hand, was inextricably linked, almost from its inception, with universities. Its exponential growth into the financial juggernaut of today has created the conflicting interests associated currently with the student-athlete concept.

Incidentally, I have refrained from previously posting in this thread as I presumed that a hardcore academic perspective would not be received well. Nevertheless, I commend the original poster for starting this thread; it is, without question, one of the great conundrums associated with intercollegiate athletics. It is also refreshing to discuss topics of this sort on a more philosophical level, regardless of how stridently we adhere to our respective opinions. It is a distinct change-of-pace from the highly focused topics usually posed here.

 

[vol66]

I do not disagree with you in the slightest. I am strangely reminded of the Jan Kemp scandal at Georgia. There was something fundamentally wrong when a Georgia athletic department official admonished her with the warning, "Who do you think is more important here, you (a professor) or a football player?" In this case, we are talking about players who were having difficulty passing a remedial course in their natal language (English), for crying out loud, and the implicit message was that athletics are infinitely more important than academics, particularly at institutions of higher learning.

The disparate historical trajectories of football and baseball, as American sports, have contributed significantly to the conundrum that we are now dissecting. The infrastructure for a player-development system (i.e. minor leagues) was established early in baseball and it remained free of university control. Football, on the other hand, was inextricably linked, almost from its inception, with universities. Its exponential growth into the financial juggernaut of today has created the conflicting interests associated currently with the student-athlete concept.

Incidentally, I have refrained from previously posting in this thread as I presumed that a hardcore academic perspective would not be received well. Nevertheless, I commend the original poster for starting this thread; it is, without question, one of the great conundrums associated with intercollegiate athletics. It is also refreshing to discuss topics of this sort on a more philosophical level, regardless of how stridently we adhere to our respective opinions. It is a distinct change-of-pace from the highly focused topics usually posed here.

First, I appreciate "a hardcore academic perspective". I wouldn't want it any other way. Second, while admonishing players for not being able to pass remedial english, one might do well to spell "national" language correctly. j/k

As I watched the '97 UT vs. Arkansas game, a classic on television tonight, it's hard NOT to wonder how much money was exchanged between Fox, The SEC, The NCAA and all the advertisers. It's hard to look at all those great players, and say they don't deserve a cut of the pie a decade plus after they have been gone.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

First, I appreciate "a hardcore academic perspective". I wouldn't want it any other way. Second, while admonishing players for not being able to pass remedial english, one might do well to spell "national" language correctly. j/k

As I watched the '97 UT vs. Arkansas game, a classic on television tonight, it's hard NOT to wonder how much money was exchanged between Fox, The SEC, The NCAA and all the advertisers. It's hard to look at all those great players, and say they don't deserve a cut of the pie a decade plus after they have been gone.

No, actually, I was using "natal" intentionally. Literally, it means "relating to the place or time of one’s birth." I was using it metaphorically to indicate one's native tongue or, if you prefer, the language into which one was born culturally.

 

[vol66]

No, actually, I was using "natal" intentionally. Literally, it means "relating to the place or time of one’s birth." I was using it metaphorically to indicate one's native tongue or, if you prefer, the language into which one was born culturally.

I guess that's what I get for debating a hard core academic. Apologies.

 

[Vol_51]

If they get a degree thats great and all but the athletes make more money for the university than anyone else so I dont mind if they get it any easier.

No one pays upwards of $100 a ticket to see a kid write a term paper

 

[Vercingetorix]

If they get a degree thats great and all but the athletes make more money for the university than anyone else so I dont mind if they get it any easier.

No one pays upwards of $100 a ticket to see a kid write a term paper

You don't have any idea how it works.