Pay them!!

OriginalGatorHater

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
9,076
I'm not denying to an extent the system is fucked up. I'm denying that under current laws you can just do something to fix it or make it fair. They can't just decide to start paying players. Its not happening. Really their only option is to allow the profit off of likeness thing.
I am not saying one way or the other. I am just saying the idea that some TV extras and street performers don't get paid much means D1 caliber athletes shouldn't get paid much is beyond ridiculous.
 

Edward20

Freshman
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
153
I am not saying one way or the other. I am just saying the idea that some TV extras and street performers don't get paid much means D1 caliber athletes shouldn't get paid much is beyond ridiculous.
And D1 athletes getting paid much when you have to pay all of them the same and most schools lose money let alone make enough on Athletics Dept budgets to do it no less is far more ridiculous than that. The only reason the low rent budget entertainers were brought into it was because ya boy made the most ridiculous statement of all saying "most entertainers get paid VERY well".
 

OriginalGatorHater

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
9,076
And D1 athletes getting paid much when you have to pay all of them the same and most schools lose money let alone make enough on Athletics Dept budgets to do it no less is far more ridiculous than that. The only reason the low rent budget entertainers were brought into it was because ya boy made the most ridiculous statement of all saying "most entertainers get paid VERY well".
I don't even know who the other poster was. No, it is nowhere close to as ridiculous as your statement. Comparing people who maybe took an acting class once or who where in their HS musical and then decided to fly down to LA or NYC to try and make it big. To guys that are in the top 1% of football genetics and also dedicated their lives to the sport is unbelievable.
 

firstandcanes

Sophomore
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
1,409
The problem I can see arising from the payment of players is the other sports at universities. Football and basketball are the most popular college sports. Would the athletes that play these sports make more than say someone who plays lacrosse or tennis? I just see a total ***** fest coming from this. Either from the kids playing the less popular sports not receiving equal amounts of money or from the amount being recieved in general.

There will never be an equal playing field in college football. The Alabaga's and Jawja's will still be giving handouts under the table. No payment system will change that regardless of the NCAA mandating an even scale.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
5,081
Title IX is your enemy if you're desperate to pay players. It's not like the NCAA is a billion dollar company like the NFL swimming in its riches. The administration gets paid, but they're a governing body. All of the money being made (TV Money, say) is being distributed to the conferences, then to individual schools. Then, that money gets dispersed to different athletic programs like women's soccer that cant sustain itself but receive that funding because of title IX.

IX would not allow a school to only have athletic programs that turn a profit, because then the amount of male scholarships wouldn't reflect the gender breakdown of its student body. College Football pays for almost all of athletic programs at a school. It's the reason few athletic programs are actually profitable. Paying college football players under title IV isn't economically viable... but it seems like these facts are never brought up
 

JD08

Freshman
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
1,120
track isn't underfunded neither is basketball and I doubt baseball is either.......... swimming mehhhhh.

I have realistic conversations bro ALMOST all of these kids don't give a shyt about school they want to make it to the league. That's real the only ones who care about education are generally the ones with marginal at best talent. the killers come to college to practice spelling N F L.
Then why make them meet academic qualifications? Do they really need to stay on campus? Is it really necessary for them even be students at all?

https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Myth-College-Sports-Are-a-Cash-Cow2.aspx
 

Gatorhater

All-American
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
14,998
LMAO! He would take a massive paycut. That is the thing though, even if they start paying players. That just means the Bamas of the world are going to pay them the going rate, and drop a bag on top of it.
We might pict up a slight edge over some schools since we no state income tax, but only to the on the table money.
 

Gatorhater

All-American
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
14,998
Title IX is your enemy if you're desperate to pay players. It's not like the NCAA is a billion dollar company like the NFL swimming in its riches. The administration gets paid, but they're a governing body. All of the money being made (TV Money, say) is being distributed to the conferences, then to individual schools. Then, that money gets dispersed to different athletic programs like women's soccer that cant sustain itself but receive that funding because of title IX.

IX would not allow a school to only have athletic programs that turn a profit, because then the amount of male scholarships wouldn't reflect the gender breakdown of its student body. College Football pays for almost all of athletic programs at a school. It's the reason few athletic programs are actually profitable. Paying college football players under title IV isn't economically viable... but it seems like these facts are never brought up
Yeap. It would probable end up with just four sports teams left in most schools — men’s football and basketball, plus whatever two women’s sports they keep. When you start paying the people who make the money, you run out of “other” people’s money very fast.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
2,321

caneinorlando

Recruit
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
5,947
Can I ask why? I don't know the poster you're referring to, so nothing against him. But I see coaches and ex-players giving their opinions on this all of the time, and I always wonder why anyone cares what they think.

They're good at football. Let them talk about football. This isn't about football, this is about markets. Let's hear from a labor economist, or someone who has experience privatizing government-dominated industries.

Not to say we shouldn't hear the players' perspective on this, but their views on how/why this would/wouldn't work on a marco level are not very relevant.
This entire Post is Ridiculous...Said player is no longer a player...Why should his perspective be discounted??...Lol at "Not very relevant"....If anything, I certainly would like his input...Why not??...
 
Last edited:

Home Slice

Recruit
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
2,113
I understand this concern, and it's why it took me a while to come around to my current perspective that college football should be a completely free labor market.

However, after seeing Alabama and Clemson play for (basically) their 4th straight national title, I am no longer concerned about parity. There isn't any now, so what are we trying to preserve?

European soccer leagues are completely free labor markets, and already resemble college football. The same handful of teams are towards the top every year, and every so often an underdog has a great year and a top team has a down year. I don't think anything would change.
Your points are certainly valid. Of the 2 schools you mention, one is already way above and beyond the other in "fringe benefits" offered. Not even close. Someone posted a list of 5* kids signing with schools in another thread. It was 2:1 with the schools. You're correct in the the fact the top schools are the top schools. Not sure your age, but I grew up in an era without any parity. We had about 2 teams per conference that absolutely destroyed everyone else. Games were often 50+ to 0 or near zero until those 2 met. It was like a society without a middle class. Now, at least more games are close. I remember the old Ticket Deals the Bama kids got in Bear's day NCAA finally clamped down on Player's Tickets being more restricted. My concern is every top kid in US will see Bama's (others) jerseys flying off the shelves at 10-20 Grand per jersey, etc. Maybe no limit. Far fetched? Nope.
 

JD08

Freshman
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
1,120
They don't have a choice can't go to the NFL from high school if you could some probably would skip college. the qualifications are to give the appearance of actually caring about scholastic values. which many of them don't.
Agreed. But wouldn't you say its better for them to have some college than none at all? How many make NFL rosters? Isn't the real value in the education they receive?

Also, don't mistake my disagreement about paying them for approval of the current system. They absolutely should be getting more than they are.
 

Canes1968

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
1,500
Lmao. You know someones argument has fell apart when they result to insults 😂

Miami wouldn't have a multi-million dollar apparel deal with Adidas without the football program. That's a fact.
LOL...Miami's deal with Adidas doesn't help your argument dude. Yes, that deal exists primarily because of the football program, but what's your point? All of that money we are getting from Adidas, and donors, and tv contracts, etc. is getting reinvested back into the athletic program (primarily football), and that reinvestment primarily benefits the football players. It's part of their overall benefits package. Just because a benefit is not paid in cash, doesn't mean a benefit isn't being paid. Players are being paid, it's just being done via food, housing, degrees, tutoring, coaching, strength training, medical care, apparel, etc. The value of that on a per football player basis is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
 

Canes1968

Sophomore
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
1,500
Ok so now I know you were lying about the PhD thing - no school would award an econ degree to someone who says "revenue is a meaningless number"!
LOL...revenue is meaningless if you are losing money on the bottom line dude. In the context of college football programs, you can't just site revenue figures as a justification for paying players. If the program's expenses are greater than their revenues (and the majority are) then, where exactly do you expect the money for paying players to come from? That's why revenue is a meaningless number for the purposes of this argument.
 

RafterRat

Recruit
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
33
Without these players the NCAA wouldn’t have all that money. The main reason why they make billions is because of these players. So why not pay those players because the NFL does.
For every player that doesn't want to play, there are 10 that gladly will.
 
Top