Benefits rule is un-American, illogical, and utter BS

[SFbayCane]

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]




This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.

"immorally suppresses wages." what a crock. they get tuition free. they get housing free on campus, and a stupidly high housing stipend for moving off campus. they get food free, and better food than normal students. they get academic support that normal students don't get. they get brand new laptops and ipads. they don't have to pay for books that can easily total to over $1000/semester.

do i think they deserve a stipend since they can't realistically hold jobs to make some disposable income? absolutely. they work their asses off, and that's why the ncaa approved stipends, but let's not act like these guys aren't coddled from the day they arrive on campus.

Yup, ceteris paribus, without a football scholarship some of these guys would be standing on the corner playing with their ****, and without football some of them would be attending on an academic scholarship.

So first lemme say it great to see you back on our board, Chuckles. Glad to have you back. Missed you, sweet pea. <big kiss>

to the topic, again, the NCAA has a monopoly in football. If enough of these kids walked away from scholarships, the marketplace would develop an alternative, likely similar to minor league baseball where individual NFL teams would have their own minor league system and NCAA football would either go away or relent on their arcane labor rules. It aint rocket science, its just the invisible hand.

 

[GreenBeans]

There's a bizarre Hegelian Dialectic going on in this thread. Its all about the football athlete in a vacuum. To see the full reality, I suggest looking past athletics. Some examples:

1) A kid who is on a music scholarship is allowed to make money playing in a band on weekends, allowed to make money teaching music lessons at a local music store, etc... and no one complains. And if their band gets signed, that scholarship student can profit from their image and/or band image with no recourse to their scholarship money.

2) A kid who is on academic scholarship is allowed to make money tutoring lower level students, often times athletes. lol Yet no one is screaming that they are getting a $200K education for free and should not be allowed to make money tutoring.

Yet somehow people do not think that a scholarship athlete should be allowed to profit from their own given talents. These kids cannot work at a local high school camp in the off season, cannot teach private lessons to young kids wanting to learn football, etc... I find that disingenuous. And the only reason I've seen floated is because someone thinks "they get enough already." But the bottom line is that these rules are put in place to preserve the value of the NCAA, not the individual. No one has made the case that the UM skool of music is weaker because Sarah, who is on a scholarship to play cello is teaching lessons at the Miami Beach music store.

Moreover, when you look at the sum of revenue generated by some of these athletes to the universities, its clear that there is collusion among the universities to suppress their compensation by threatening to harm their market value if they decide to get a little too uppity. I, for one have a problem with that.

Spot on.

The NCAA is protecting themselves as an organization and not the athletes.

 

[GreenBeans]

Meanwhile, Universities are making Multi-millions and the NCAA makes multi billions as a good amount of these student athletes playing for these P5 schools get a grip of elective classes that won't benefit them in real life.

The universities put that revenue right back into their programs. The players not only get free college degrees, they also get the best training for their sport, training tables unavailable to a regular student, tutors unavailable to a regular student, free personal marketing, etc.

I keep waiting for the first player to turn down a Division 1 football scholarship because of the unnecessary burden it puts on his life.

Poor rebuttal. Its not a zero sum game. Revenue generated by the student athlete outside of the NCAA indentured servant system (ie: working at a HS skills camp over the summer) does not subtract from the revenue generated that goes to the university system.

And your rebuttal has nothing to do with my rebuttal. Does that make it poorer? Neither myself nor the person I responded to mentioned anything about the summer work rules.

My issue is with the NCAA rules structure that restricts the student athlete from the free market. I dont think its genuine to disallow criticisms of certain NCAA rules while supporting others, at least that's not what Im attempting to debate here.

I guess Ive been too close to this stuff. When I was a scholarship soccer player at Fresno State, I used to trade my complimentary game tickets for a case of Heineken.... when I didnt give them to girls in an effort to set something up for later that night. (which I guess was a compensation of sorts - lol ) But to think that I could have lost my scholarship for that and/or our final 4 appearance in '86 been taken away is criminal to me.




Great discussion by all in this thread though. Kudos!

To me a student athlete must pay off his tuition debt. Once his tuition debt is paid off he should then be allowed to benefit from his likeness.

So if he wants to make money from his likeness he must pay the school the full cost of his tuition. The school should also be allowed to take a percentage of all money made with another percentage going to all players once the receive their degree.

50% going to the school, 40% going to the athlete and 10% going to each senior that graduates.

 

[HarrietTubmanCane]

U are thinking well GreenBeans!

 

[SFbayCane]

Working from memory on this post but I plan to do the research when time permits.

My argument is that the NCAA is allowed to get away with draconian labor laws with regard to its football scholarship athletes because of its monopoly. That in turn has created the black market that is commonplace within this system today.


It seems that basketball programs got punished much more harshly than they do today. Why? Because the NCAA lost its basketball monopoly in (I wanna say) 2005 when they went to the one and done rule, as opposed to the 3 year rule. After that, kids occasionally turned down D1 scholarships to play juco ball or other levels of ball because they knew they would become draft eligible within a year and did not need the added exposure of D1 ball.

Look at baseball. We rarely see the NCAA put teams on baseball probation. Why??? Is baseball recruiting that much cleaner than football? Not likely. Are extra benefits not paid to baseball players while on campus? not likely the case. The reason is that the NCAA does not have a monopoly on minor league baseball. Hence, they cannot enforce their draconian rules like they still can in football.

Again, Ima do some research over the next couple weeks if I get a chance. We'll see if Im correct 'bout 'dis.

 

[Canedude08]

While these young men should be able to make money based on their own image and abilities, the problem lies in the fact that it would make the playing field even more tilted than it currently is. As a Miami fan, you should dread the day that the large state schools can give out whatever they want, and it be perfectly legal. The U would be dead, there's no way Miami could compete with these schools, it's hard enough as is. Frankly, if the day comes in which the state schools break away, Miami would be on the outside looking in, because even with a ton of TV money, The U lacks the alumni and donor base to compete with schools that are glorified diploma mills.

 

[HarrietTubmanCane]

I really wonder when the current improper benefits infraction rules and penalties were established by the NCAA?

 

[Canedude08]

A lot of minor league baseball contracts include full tuition for college in the event that they quit baseball. Without a minor league football league players don't have this option which is why attending college is the best choice. You also have better coaches in college so you are more likely to make the NFL by attending a P5 school. Very few players were good enough to play in the NFL on their own. Almost everyone in the NFL can think their college coach for getting them there.

Miami had a wide receiver in the late nineties that used his Atlanta Braves money to pay his tuition. Andre King was his name, Chris Weinke did a similar thing when he showed up at FSU.

 

[Chuckles]

The musician is not competing in an amateur sport. It's not required that they be amateurs to play a local gig or start a band.

The rules are clear. If they have a moral objection to it then they can refuse to play within that system and seek free-market alternatives.[/QUOTE]




This is where your argument falls short, as the invisible hand tells us that when the freedom of the market place is infringed upon, a black market will arise, as it has here. For every AQM or Jermaine Grace who are caught, how many do you think get away with illegal benefits? Which leads us to a place where people have to ask if UM is cursed, etc. lol It is what it is.... A system that immorally suppresses wages in an effort to transfer wealth to those with power and control. In short, a monopoly.

"immorally suppresses wages." what a crock. they get tuition free. they get housing free on campus, and a stupidly high housing stipend for moving off campus. they get food free, and better food than normal students. they get academic support that normal students don't get. they get brand new laptops and ipads. they don't have to pay for books that can easily total to over $1000/semester.

do i think they deserve a stipend since they can't realistically hold jobs to make some disposable income? absolutely. they work their asses off, and that's why the ncaa approved stipends, but let's not act like these guys aren't coddled from the day they arrive on campus.

Yup, ceteris paribus, without a football scholarship some of these guys would be standing on the corner playing with their ****, and without football some of them would be attending on an academic scholarship.

So first lemme say it great to see you back on our board, Chuckles. Glad to have you back. Missed you, sweet pea. <big kiss>

to the topic, again, the NCAA has a monopoly in football. If enough of these kids walked away from scholarships, the marketplace would develop an alternative, likely similar to minor league baseball where individual NFL teams would have their own minor league system and NCAA football would either go away or relent on their arcane labor rules. It aint rocket science, its just the invisible hand.

I value you as well. What we can't seem to agree on is the notion that the player does not bring the same investment to the table as the school. I am fine with the marketplace developing an alternative. Who will go first? If the economics work why doesn't someone do it? Again, will the players pay for coaches, equipment, trainers, and all the rest of the support structure? That's a part of the economics that seems to be often left out. Until someone comes up with all the things that go into a D-1 football program and makes the economics work it's all a fairy tale. That's the invisible hand that's being left out of this equation.

Assuming for the sake of giggles that the players can't put together what is needed to replace a major college football program there could be an alternative that benefits both the player and the school:

1. Cancel all football scholarships
2. Colleges can use their owned stadiums for intramural football, sell their stadium to independent corporation, or the NFL if they're interested. Not a U problem.
3. Athletes can compete for a salary on an NFL minor league team
4. Players can form unions, teams can choose to play where the economics dictate
5. Player's attorneys can get the best possible contracts for their clients

Yes, I've veered off into the woods with this. At the risk of sounding like the guy that says "It's always been done this way" until someone comes up with a better way I don't see a bunch of kids in their teens and early twenties creating what it takes to replace college football. And will the promoters serve the best interests of the players? Players tend to overstate their real INDIVIDUAL economic worth to a college and fans tend to think colleges somehow can't exist without big time football.

I'm no fan of the NCAA, or the insulated elites that run the schools and no doubt there could be improvements but going pro-early does not look like a player-friendly solution to me.

It's a nice debate to have over a couple of pitchers of beer. We can repeat it next year when little has changed.

 

[Torocane]

and I'm not even going to engage in a back and forth, I'm really not interested. But I'll say this, I can tell a lot about a person who supports it

Write the NCAA a letter and let them know how you feel.

 

[Bunker Mentality]

and I'm not even going to engage in a back and forth, I'm really not interested. But I'll say this, I can tell a lot about a person who supports it

are you upset that they won't graduate and get their degrees from UM, or that they won't suit up and slam into other kids with a U on their helmet?

 

[INCaneFan]

Lots of stupid in this thread, especially those attempting to rationalize what these young men did.
They knew the rules, and they knowingly broke it.
I would have some semblance of sympathy if a kid took money so his mom could pay the light
bill or if he needed to feed a mouth or two.
But this was nothing but pure greed.

And for those bemoaning these rules regarding benefits, do you not realize if the rules didn't exist
UM, and most private schools, would no longer have realistic opportunities for national titles?
Heck, maybe not even top25.

Stop posting garbage.

Truth and for him and I to agree on something....it's worth noting.

You allow pay for play, the big schools would dominate the collegiate athletics scene. We would be lucky to even be able to hang with USF, UCF, FAU, etc.

 

[DC Dog Nuts]

Who the **** said Cook was ready for the NFL out of high school? That is beyond stupid.

And Winston brought them back to the top, not Cook.

 

[Rellyrell]

This rule is very American if U check history. Its un-American according to the idea of what America is.

Also I know from first-hand accounts, friends, and family that the 6 figure education part of the deal is a somewhat farce for 80% of college players. I'm not gonna get into the specific stories but in short, the most talented athletes are strongly encouraged and in many cases I know of, made/forced to select a pre-determined schedule of classes and major, none of which will provide any strong basis for employment or wealth if football doesn't pan out. The school schedules clearly reflect what the focus of the scholarship agreement as student ATHLETES.

One side of these agreements (the university) is promised to be made wealthy, while the others (players) future is still in question.

By the time a player graduates, he has paid for his 6 figure education probably 3 times with the revenue they bring in. Dalvin Cook alone has probably made FSU 10 times the expenses of his education in only 2 seasons.

I agree

Boosters and paying players to come to a school is different and should always be illegal. But not allowing players to benefit off their likeness is wrong.


To me it is simple. Money should be held in a trust and made available only if the player graduates with a degree. If they leave early for the draft they forfeit any money. The school can get their cut from the mone made also.

Solid, solid post.

 

[MedleyCane]

Lots of stupid in this thread, especially those attempting to rationalize what these young men did.
They knew the rules, and they knowingly broke it.
I would have some semblance of sympathy if a kid took money so his mom could pay the light
bill or if he needed to feed a mouth or two.
But this was nothing but pure greed.

And for those bemoaning these rules regarding benefits, do you not realize if the rules didn't exist
UM, and most private schools, would no longer have realistic opportunities for national titles?
Heck, maybe not even top25.

Stop posting garbage.

Truth and for him and I to agree on something....it's worth noting.

You allow pay for play, the big schools would dominate the collegiate athletics scene. We would be lucky to even be able to hang with USF, UCF, FAU, etc.

LOL....Strange time indeed.
Just tired of some the ignorant stuff being posted.

 

[HarrietTubmanCane]

DC, if thats all U can pinpoint out of my posts and disagree with in order to justify calling me stupid, I'll take it. U are thirsty my friend lol!

I never said Cook was the sole reason for their resurgence. I said that Cook has played a huge roll in bringing in revenue for that team the last 2 seasons, and especially last season when he put the entire team on his back. Thats irrefutable, stop reaching.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

LOL @ anybody saying these athletes are getting free rides.

These athletes get what you call Full Grants In Aid from the school...money that goes right back to the school in the form of tuition & fees, room & board,books,etc.,etc..

IOWs, the school is paying themselves, and these administrators & coaches are getting it back tenfold.