forums

Re: Pay for Play...the NCAA is not the villain

g8rh8rMD said:
I've really always thought that we'd all be better off if the NFL, and NBA for that matter, adopted the MLB rule that says you can go pro out of high school or you have to wait three years. But there is no incentive for the NFL to do that.

I agree with you, that this conversation to me is about the greater population and institution of collegiate athletics, rather than about the few players "getting taken advantage of". Guess what? Progressive taxation means that a segment of the population is getting taken advantage of. When I pay my bills and someone else doesn't, I am "getting taken advantage of". Nothing in this life is ever, or ever will be perfectly "fair", but the benefit of the current system, if it was policed ethically and evenhandedly, would be about as good on the cost-benefit scale as is achievable in the grand scheme of things.

Problem is, the corruption at the top of the NCAA and many of it's member institutions is also unacceptable.

At this point, it seems the only possible outcome is to burn the whole thing down. I just think that's unfortunate. But so is much of what's happened in college football and basketball in the past decade, plus where cheating has become so rampant. Maybe burning it down really is the best thing, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Any reason not to burn it down?

The market place - in any given form, and you provided that example earlier with the history of basketball - will provide.
 
Advertisement
mackjones said:
That monetary figure is PEANUTS in stark contrast to what the university " rakes in " from the conference and lucrative telly contracts!
Click to expand...

Really? OK. Show your work.

The ACC paid out $29.5 million per school last year. After covering all athletic scholarships, travel, facilities, and the coaches, trainers, advisers, nutritionists, psychologists, health insurance and medical bills, etc. Exactly how much did the University "rake in" on the backs of their PEANUTS investment in student-athletes last year?
 
Silentobserver said:
Any reason not to burn it down?

The market place - in any given form, and you provided that example earlier with the history of basketball - will provide.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people will miss it, for one.

But yes, if the NCAA banned all collegiate athletics tomorrow, the elite football and basketball players would be fine in fairly short order, although a lot of them would miss out on educational opportunities they would find difficult to replace.

The ones who will suffer most will be the tennis, softball, crew, track and field, wrestling, swimming and diving, lacrosse, gymnastics, golf, etc athletes who otherwise might not be able to get into or afford college, or would just have to take out debilitating student loans in lieu of a scholarship.

This is just a little bit bigger than the 210 or so football players and 60ish basketball players who get drafted each year.
 
CaneSince4Ever said:
LOL, why should I care if some trust fund baby doesn't get to play LAX? If they really wanna play, either drop to D2, or they should pay for it, they can afford it.
Click to expand...

You don't have to care, which is why no one asked you. Sports are not going to be separated from schools. But keep defending that guy. You two deserve each other.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
I think a lot of people will miss it, for one.

But yes, if the NCAA banned all collegiate athletics tomorrow, the elite football and basketball players would be fine in fairly short order, although a lot of them would miss out on educational opportunities they would find difficult to replace.

The ones who will suffer most will be the tennis, softball, crew, track and field, wrestling, swimming and diving, lacrosse, gymnastics, golf, etc athletes who otherwise might not be able to get into or afford college, or would just have to take out debilitating student loans in lieu of a scholarship.

This is just a little bit bigger than the 210 or so football players and 60ish basketball players who get drafted each year.
Click to expand...

The other athletes and sports could still exist and function but on a smaller scale. Do we need Ole Miss gymnastics to travel every other weekend to different states to compete? Couldn’t they compete more locally?

they currently do this at the D3 level.
 
Silentobserver said:
No I want to separate money from this "scholastic endeavor". Play the sports don't monetize it
Click to expand...
Sports are only monetized because people care. People will stop caring once CFB is as soul-less as the NFL with for hire mercenaries. This is already happening and if you look around, stadiums around the country have been empty the last few years.
 
Silentobserver said:
The other athletes and sports could still exist and function but on a smaller scale. Do we need Ole Miss gymnastics to travel every other weekend to different states to compete? Couldn’t they compete more locally?

they currently do this at the D3 level.
Click to expand...

But the question remains.......why? Sports are healthy for students and for universities. Why are we **** bent on reducing the opportunities to play?
 
Advertisement
crossover22[]_[] said:
Correct. No problem with free market. But you think 95% of the team will be cool with yhe other 5% making money? These are kids not business men.
Click to expand...

Again, so what? Just because some teammates MIGHT get jealous isn't a valid reason for preventing a football player from profiting from their likeness.
 
crossover22[]_[] said:
Lol if you cant see how that will be abused i cant help you. Im sure Alabama and Clemson will play by the rules.


Whats to say wealthy boosters dont just buy truckloads of **** to pay the players?


Yall live in a fantasy world where nobody cheats the system.
Click to expand...

You avoided my question. What is wrong with players making even more money than they already do if the market determines they are worth it?

Furthermore, Alabama and Clemson already do not play by the rules. Programs already have boosters that pay players. That's not a reason to prevent players from profiting from their likeness.
 
kmwcane said:
Again, so what? Just because some teammates MIGHT get jealous isn't a valid reason for preventing a football player from profiting from their likeness.
Click to expand...

Or we could just let the kid choose to not play in the NCAA and he can profit from his likeness all he wants. But then we get into that uncomfortable conversation where people have to admit that without the university and NCAA, no one would have ever heard of the player.
 
kmwcane said:
You avoided my question. What is wrong with players making even more money than they already do if the market determines they are worth it?

Furthermore, Alabama and Clemson already do not play by the rules. Programs already have boosters that pay players. That's not a reason to prevent players from profiting from their likeness.
Click to expand...


What is wrong? They are not professionals. They are amateur athletes.
 
kmwcane said:
Why do you get to determine what is enough or not? Why does it matter to you? If the market says a player is worth $500,000 then why do you care?
Click to expand...

Why can't he just go be worth $500,000 without the NCAA and a university being involved? Go make your money. Leave the scholarships for the kids who need them since you are worth so much.
 
kmwcane said:
Why do you get to determine what is enough or not? Why does it matter to you? If the market says a player is worth $500,000 then why do you care?
Click to expand...


Because i believe in amateur athletics. Simple as that.


How about this. Pay them but no more scholarships, food and housing.
 
Advertisement
PanamaCityCanes said:
Why can't he just go be worth $500,000 without the NCAA and a university being involved? Go make your money. Leave the scholarships for the kids who need them since you are worth so much.
Click to expand...


The market doesnt even say what a player is worth.


Im sure the womens dance team wont come screaming they should be paid.
 
Back
Top