snitches get stitches, foster
snitches get stitches, foster
at mgoblog in months.
LMAO!!!! I'm over here crying
This happened outside the statute of limitations unless the NCAA can show that it was part of a pattern of willful violations by the program.
I figured there was a statute of limitations issue, but in a hypothetical world where the NCAA was competent, this would have to be a huge case of "where there's smoke there's fire". In other words, if former Tennessee players said they were getting paid, wouldn't that be enough reason for at least a token audit or investigation or something into the current program just to check that it's not still ongoing?
I know the joke is always to point and laugh at the NCAA, but really, what power can they have? The reason they exist at all is partially because they don't pay players. And with all the things that happen behind the scenes, even if everyone didn't turn a blind eye to it, how to you solve it? 100k fans at your stadium, but business, how do you handle this?
The answer is that there isn't an answer. The is no solution to this. You can't make it another pro league. You can't pay them a little because then where does it stop, how do you prevent someone from bending those rules to make millions while others make a couple hundred. And clearly you can't pay them in just a scholarship and whatever else they get now.
It's not so much that there isn't an answer, there just isn't one that works. Ideally, young athletes looking to get paid should be able to turn pro at age 18 and not set foot any where near a university campus. Why this works for baseball or hockey but not basketball or football, who knows?
See, I think that would work for football and basketball (hell, it did work for basketball until they changed it). The problem isn't that it wouldn't work. The problem is that the NBA and NFL love that they have a free minor league that trains and markets their players for them. That way, NBA GMs don't have to worry about scouting high school kids for the draft and they already come with name recognition. Same goes for the NFL. They don't have to worry about drafting a kid with a ton of talent and teaching him anything - they get to draft them once they're a finished product.
The NHL and MLB have minor leagues where a young prospect can play until he's ready to bring up. The NBA kind of does, but the NFL has nothing like that. And since starting one from nothing would be too hard and cost too much money, they're content with telling kids they can't go pro until they're 21 and letting the NCAA act as their farm system.
One very significant difference between football and the other sports is that big-time college football pre-dates the NFL by a wide margin. It was big before there was an NFL. The NFL only came into existence because of college football. Replacing all or part of college football with a minor league will never happen.
Football and basketball started as college sports, espeically football, and pro leagues followed by drafting players out of the college. Baseball and Ice Hockey are very different, various leagues are established way before college sports are big deal.
It's an NFL rule, not an NCAA rule. And the 18 year olds can play in the UFL or CFL if they'd like. The problem is that they don't get as much exposure.
I wish this retort was given more often to the college kids who think they should get paid. You think people want to pay to see you play football? Go play in Canada. They'll pay you. If you're really as good as you think you are, the NFL will still be available in a year or two.
I mean for starters the game doesn't translate as well and second of all, why does this notion of amatuerism only apply to players? They're "amatauers" but how much money did Addidas make off selling #16 Michigan jerseys from 2009-2012? Nick Saban makes 5. how many million per year? Get money out of the game and I'm fine with this argument. But I don't really buy it when everyone else is able to get as much of the cut as they feel they deserve except the people who others actually pay to watch.
Just because people pay to watch them, doesn't mean they aren't amateurs. People pay to go to HS games, and their coaches are paid, but no one thinks HS player should be paid.
And I don't pay to watch Denard Robinson or Devin Gardner. I pay to watch Michigan. I will watch them no matter who the guys are they trot out there. So no, I don't think they should get a cut of it. If people weren't buying 16 jerseys, they would have bought some other number.
C'mon man, I know you aren't that naive. The difference is in the revenue, You don't see head coaches of high school programs averaging millions of dollars per year. You don't see high schools claiming millions in revenue off of their games. People think that college kids should be paid because the teams they root for rake in money and their favorite players don't (legally) see a dime of it. If College Football was making as little as 99% of high schools do off their football programs, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Not all college football teams are money makers.
Additionally, if they were to be paid, how much? Would QBs get paid more that kickers? Would starters get paid more than backups? Would local cost of living be adjusted for each area? Bottom line, even if they are paid, do you really think that will keep them from getting additional money from boosters?
The Olympics tried the whole "Amateur Athlete" thing for the longest time and it just wouldn't work.
Allow the kids to get endorsements. They can't wear things on the field/court that violate the school's contracts, but why the hell can't Denard do a couple Pizza House commercials while he's in town and make some cash?
I suppose you could attempt to regulate that a bit. Cap the number of allowed endorsements. No endorsing booze/smokes/etc. Cap the money a bit. Would it be the end of the world if Denard had received $250k for drinking some Gatorade infront of a camera?
This is an inconsistent argument. If players should be able to get whatever the market will pay them, why "regulate that a bit?" Your proposed cap would be identical to the current system, except at a higher corruption level.
Would it be the end of the (college sport as it currently exists) world if boosters could pay players to play for their favorite teams? Yes, of course it would. Endorsement contracts would simply be ways of channeling payments to players who picked the highest-paying schools. Why even play the games if the highest-paying schools are going to win anyway?
Oh I agree, they should be free to get whatever they can, whenever they can.
It was in response to the people who believe that you can't give them an inch because they'll take a mile.
A compromise would be giving them a couple yards so they're at least comfortable and able to cash in the short amount of time their bodies can earn them cash.
So this leads me to a question that I honestly am clueless about: What type of housing/food allowance is provided for football players - or any other scholarship athletes - that don't live in residence halls after their first year or two on campus? Is it exactly equivalent to yearly residence hall costs?
It was something a little more than $1K per month in like 2008. The players got to choose how much money they wanted to allocate of that to rent/food.
Makes sense why you see 5-6 football players renting a house, just like the rest of us students who needed to share rental costs. The cynical part of me says that I could've stretched that monthly stipend budget by eating a lot of pasta and soup, but I wasn't feeding a 6'6" 310 pound body.
I also assume there's food available during the football season for off-campus football players @ the South Quad training table? But not off-season?
So many questions.
When I was at UM I thought the football players had access to the training table throughout the year in SQ, but I may wrong.
Training table used to be Sunday - Thrusday. Cottage Inn "gift cards" were provided for Saturday and Sunday. I'm talking 25 years ago, though.
I wasn't sure about the weekends during the season; I know they sometimes went to West Quad.
This was taken from the SI article, but they also get,
After home games players get a per diem of around $15; after away games the NCAA allows them to receive an amount equal to what the university allots for any athletic department employee on a work trip.
Players get a monthly stipend to cover rent and food
What about cell phone...college kid spending money...car notes.....clothing....auto insurance. Lets not forget how much it costs to simply live. Why should athletes who cannot work jobs to make money have to go without simple things like the aforementioned? I dont think athletes should be "ballin" but I do feel that the NCAA can do more in providing the niceties for the money making university building athletes in such that they dont have struggle to have simple things. The education is an awesome perk....but make no mistake...it is a business investment by the respective university and the university RAKES in cash at the players expense. The NCAA could and should do more for these young men.
As stated multiple times in this thread, the players are given enough money for thos things (except maybe a car note, but I didn't have that in college because I either didn't have a car or I had an $800 Ford Escort). Either way, with the $1300/mo they get, they can pay rent and still have enough college kid-type spending money for a cell phone, late night eats, whatever.
Ask most kids at Michigan if they spend more than $1300 a month on that stuff. I bet for most of them, it's no.
"...the university RAKES in cash at the players expense."
How is this at the players' expense? What is the opportunity cost to a college football player to go to college and get a degree and play football along the way?
People didn't buy tickets to watch Denard Robinson. They bought tickets to watch Michigan football before he got there, while he was there, and after he left. May the FSM always hold Denard in his Noodly Appendage, but the school didn't rake in money at his expense. It just raked in money at the ticket-buyers' expense, and Denard was part of a package.
Here's NCAA Bylaw 220.127.116.11 - Off Campus Room And Board Stipend:
"If a student-athlete lives and eats in noninstitutional facilities, the institution may provide the student-athlete an amount equal to the institution’s official on-campus room allowance as listed in its catalog, the average of the room costs of all of its students living on campus or the cost of room as calculated based on its policies and procedures for calculating the cost of attendance for all students. The institution also may provide the student-athlete an amount that is equivalent to an on-campus 7-day or 21-meal board plan or the cost of meals as calculated based on its policies and procedures for calculating the cost of attendance for all students, excluding those meals provided as part of the training table"
And I truly mean it. Thanks for the offiical info.
Players are given checks in the amount of $1000/month for rent. Many of them live at places that don't cost half that (i.e. the homes down by the Athletic Campus) and they pocket the rest. Ever wonder why Denard was always able to sport a better wardrobe than 99% of undergrads?
The sob story by Foster and others is just a manipulation of the public to deflect the real reason he and others accept money - because people like money.
The area around athletic campus is still around 600+ a month (no bills). It's not that much cheaper. A lot of guys/girls live by the mall or further down packard and use the athletic campus parking pass.
Scholarship checks are just about $1300/month these days... they increase reach year with inflation etc.
And Tennessee =/= Michigan. Who the hell knows how much it is down there?
And you nailed it. Find a land lord to hook you up on rent and you can live pretty good on the change. I was on scholarship and they gave you more than enough for books and meal plan too, most of which went in my pocket. A few professors every semester wouldn't require you to buy the book.
I guess ball players should forego the desire to....I dont know...talk on a cell phone... ...go to a movie...drive a car lol. That stipend money goes away very quickly. Lets not act like these kids are rolling expendable cash because they are NOT. Easy to judge them and say its all good because they get to play football. Football is hard and there is way more to it than just football. Again...im not saying Terrel Pryor thebplayers.....lets just be real and not assume that the kids have money to burn...because they do not. Being a college athlete is hard and you do a lot of work on top of your personal and academic responsibilities. You are most always broke and its not as glamorous as we like to make it out to be especially from a financial aspect. NCAA has to find a more realistic middle ground.
Why do they need to drive a car? I along with most of my friends did not have a car while at Michigan. Parking in Ann Arbor is going to double your monthly car expenses anyway.
Get a dualie bicycle, girls love to pedal.
The answer to your first question is - totally. There is no way I had more than that per month when I was in college and I did just fine. Do you think I drank Natty Light because it tasted the best? What college kid needs $100 per week on personal stuff? Remember, their food is already paid for.
Could I live off of $300-$500 a month?
Living my college lifestyle and with room and board paid for... EASILY.
I got by on about $500-600/month INCLUDING food and lodging.
Woah... in Ann Arbor? What on earth was your rent? What year was this?
I graduated in 1998.
The MOST I ever paid in rent was the final year, and I was paying SLIGHTLY over $300/month.
Did I live right on campus? Nope.
Did I share a room with another dude? Most of the time.
In 1970? Either it was a while ago or you lived in a van down by the river.
I graduated in 2010 and I was living in a house with 6 other dudes... We were still paying 600/month rent EACH. It was not a glamorous house. Ann Arbor is an expensive place to live now if you don't have a decent amount of cash. I pretty easily went through $1600/month including rent. Maybe a bit excessive, but, I guess that's my fault for having a girlfriend and going on the occasional date.
And re: having a car? Kind of essential especially when you are pressed for time. Grocery shopping? Yeah, I'm sure these guys have the time to take the bus to Meijer and haul their groceries between practice and other obligations. And they would always be on time to practice taking the bus or walking. In the crappy Michigan weather. Right.
I don't claim to have the solution here; I think everyone is remembering college with a bit too much bravado, though.
Sorry, man. If you went through $1600 a month... That's $1000 of spending after your take out the $600 you claim your rent was.
So, 1k a month. Take out $200 for miscellaneous bills - which is generous since you claim you were splitting with 6 people.
You spent $800 a month on what? Dates aren't that expensive and quite frankly, if you think that $200 per week was "essential" then you are out of touch with reality.
It's only a matter of time before he, too, is giving tacos to players.
Mitch Album wants to buy kids a pizza but he can't.
and then Michael Rosenberg would make a full-fledged conspiracy out of it.
No, if he could, he'd tell you he bought a pizza from domino's, but then you'd find out he never did.
Awesome. He came clean when no one involved can in any way face punishment. Cool. Still, I have a tough time imagining players going hungry.
That's what confuses me. We're supposed to believe players are only taking money from boosters for food and rent? Without a full ride scholarship I managed to make it through four years at school without ever having to choose between paying rent and eating a meal. And I didn't get any free meals from an athletic department.
Maybe the NCAA needs to put less money into compliance and more money into teaching 18-22 year olds how to live on a budget.
Just playing devils advocate...did you have a job or have your parents give you some support? Most athletes do not have the time to work part time, and a good portion come from an economiccally disadvantaged background. I agree on the economics lessons though...probably something that should be given to nearly all students.
Plus 1. People are really quick too judge what a player did when he was 18-21 years old.
A lot of players live further away from campus (past Yost, down by Briarwood, etc) and have multiple roommates (ie rent a house with other athletes) to be able to afford housing. Most also, or at least they did, have a bridge card for additional food money. Finally, I know the football team has dinners provided to them during the season. When I worked for the university housing department they would bring us the the left over steak and good food the football team wouldnt eat.
With all of this said, I think most would still need a job/some extra money to be able to afford eatting out, new video games, shoes, etc that many of their classmates have. It would be hard being an athlete coming from a higher poverty area and seeing your classmates having new everything because their parents are rich...you are doing something for hte univeristy while they are just living on their parents dime.
This story line of paying players is growing more tired than 10 minute Dane Cook set up to another horrible joke. NCAA: Either pay them or not. PLAYERS: If you feel like you're being exploited then don't play. End of story. Anytime this topic comes up on sports talk radio it's an immediate tune out factor. Seems like nothing more than low hanging fruit for some show hosts who didn't do enough prep on any actual game.
I too hate Dane Cook my friend.
Well that would be a first.
SEC! Nobody pays better.
Wait... Are we to believe that some guy with extra cash in his pocket chose to spend it on a star running back from an SEC school?
He could just quit the team and give back all his free clothes, food, room and schooling he receives for free if he is feeling so exploited and go back to wherever he lived before which must be nice if they can't afford to send him $100 a week to spend on some food..... oh wait no one does that. STFU.
Take your money on the side and stop your bitching no one wants to hear it.
Interesting thought that I just had. Please poke holes in it if you like. Suppose the NCAA allowed players to take the option to receive a check each year (or monthly checks) for the value of their scholarship. Separate ones can be sent for the usual room and board that they get. It would then be up to the player to pay that money to the school in order to stay enrolled. The school would then have to show that the player is receiving no other financial aid. This way the player can decide whether he wants to be Cardale Jones ("we ain't come to play SCHOOL class is pointless") and see the value of what they're getting in cold hard cash, or take the education if he wants it. He could still be eligible to play if he just pockets the cash.
The catch: Teams must still meet APR requirements, and if they don't, they're out of the postseason. No bowls, no BCS. If Tennessee fans want to see their team winning championships by paying them, they'd better hope they recruit guys interested in the education. Guys who went the education route would be free to transfer, no restrictions. If guys just want to go get paid and get NFL training, they can go to a school that doesn't mind and just wants to win a bunch of football games.
Yeah, that's not bad in principle, though a) I don't think it would work because too many kids would take the money and be gone the next year, and b) I would hate the idea of a team with their star player who doesn't even pretend to go to school.
I would rather the NFL just drop the age limitation on being drafted. Arian Foster's quote about his coach driving a Lexus while he (Arian) was broke really pisses me off. The coach is a progessional, not an amateur. Arian Foster at Tennessee was not a professional. He was an amateur, learning how to be a professional. Guess what - my professors in college had more money than I did too.
I wish there was no limit on when kids could go pro. You think you're a pro, college-aged Arian Foster? Then go do it. Then you can get paid all you want. But if it doesn't work out, there will be no one with a Lexus willing to bring you Taco Bell when you're fucking broke.
You think you're a pro, college-aged Arian Foster? Then go do it. Then you can get paid all you want.
See, that's just it: Foster started taking money as a senior. He could very easily have gone pro. Nothing at all prevented this. Why should I feel sorry for a guy who's jealous of a Lexus when he had the chance to take the money and didn't?
Besides, 18-year-olds are not ready for the NFL, and I don't think it's a good idea to lift the age restriction for the one or two that might be when it would really hurt the many that aren't but think they are. Anyone against age restrictions on the pros should read Grantland's article on Korleone Young. "Ha ha fuck you you're broke for life because you were a major dumbass at 18" isn't a good basis for NFL policy. I'm not sorry at all if someone has to wait a little while to make millions of dollars.
But why should I feel bad for Korleone Young? He's not broke because he didn't go to college, he's broke because he's a dumbass. Lots of people don't go to college, and lots others go to college after 18. Sure, he passed on free tuition, but that decision alone doesn't keep you from making something of yourself (nor would taking it keep him from being broke anyway).
If an 18 year old kid thinks he can make it in the NFL, let him try. An 18 year old kid who thinks he can make it on Broadway or in Hollywood is allowed to even though he/she probably won't, why can't football players? But I don't actually think many kids would go right out of HS anyway - I'm doing this more for the kids who think after one or two years of college they can go, and spend the next year or two complaining about why they don't have money. You want to give up your free tuition for a shot at the NFL? Go for it. Juniors can do it, why can't freshmen or sophomores?
EDIT: This just dawned on me - you're OK with kids having the option of taking their tuition money instead of going to school (therefore not getting any education) but you're not OK with kids skipping college altogether to go pro? In both instances, the kid is making a decision at 18 as to whether or not he wants money or a college education.
First off there's a safety issue. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is physically ready for the NFL at 18. It would be murder.
Second, Broadway isn't a good comparison at all. An 18-year-old who fails on Broadway can keep trying again all his life and meantime have lots of other non-prime-time options. Fail in the NFL and you're done. You don't get to just re-enter the draft.
Third, at least a player who takes money but plays for a college team is getting adult supervision which does not exist in the pros.
Fourth, if you read the Young article you'd see how full of bad influences Young's life was. Myron Piggie was a convicted felon and is about to become so again and he's "helping" Young go pro, pick an agent, and all that. Every time some college player does something like smoke weed or make a bad decision, the board is full of people saying let's not murder the kid because kids make stupid decisions, we all did when we were that age. Are we going to simultaneously urge leniency for a kid who slips up and smokes weed, but say that it's totally OK if his life is fucked because he made a different bad decision?
...to that, WolvinLA2. I couldn't agree more.
There were no rules against you making money of your talents.
I had a similar idea. Maybe the best option is some combination of the two.
What if they just let players "major" in the sport that they are playing. Players that want to go to the NFL only can choose to focus solely on football, while players that have little chance of getting into the NFL can "dual major". They could then take the tuition that is paid to the school and give that to the players that choose football only as a salary. Living expenses and whatnot would still be paid for by the AD.
I guess my thought is that sports an degrees really do the same thing in a sense: they prepare the person for whatever job they want to pursue. Why should an individual have to pursue a degree that won't get them a job down the road if all they want to do is play football? I think most would agree that it would be a stupid life decision to focus on football only, but I think there are several degrees that many would agree are not great life decisions as well.
The SEC wouldn't need any bowl contracts, because all the teams besides Vanderbilt would be ineligible.
Do teams ever get into trouble for subverting salary caps by paying players under the table? Like say Bill Ford sits down with Calvin Johnson and says "Calvin, to make the salary cap work we can only afford to pay you $5 million a year... but if you sign this contract than we'll hire you to do a series of commerials for Ford Motor Company at $20 million a pop."?
I feel like if the NCAA allowed Johnny Manziel to charge whatever the market would bear for his autograph, you'd get into arms races between boosters. Alabama boosters are paying out 100k to each 5-star recruit that signs with them. But then T. Boone Pickens decides he wants Oklahoma State to win a National Championship so he starts offering a million dollars each to recruits. And then Phil Knight comes in...
...but that hasn't happened in pro sports, to the best of my knowledge. I think passions about college football are stronger than anything in the pro world, but maybe that's just my viewpoint.
When Kevin McHale was GM of the Timberwolves, they got reamed by the NBA for making exactly that kind of under-the-table deal with a player -- I can't recall his name, think it was a guy who used to play at UM (NTUM) (no, the other NTUM) (meaning, Terrapins). He skirted salaray-cap by having an under-the-table promise. NBA somehow found out and suspended McHale, etc.
So it probably does happen in the pros, but at least the home office can really bring down the weight of God, er, Stern, er, same thing.
Hapoened with Joe Smith. I never uncovered what the under the table deal was but they got hammered pretty good for it.
In reference to your second paragraph: This is exactly my fear for paying players in college football. You say it's "OK" to get paid for your autograph or jersey or to be the face of a car dealership, and what you just described happens. Taking it a step further, let's say Alabama booster X pays for some big recruit, and that recruit can't see the field as a frosh and is looking like a bust. So now that booster says forget it kid, I'm not paying for a scrub. So now you have kids (and their families) dealing with boosters to get the money they were promised or you have kids transferring schools because of money. Neither is good.
As for the pros, I think the reason it happens less is because they're already making a ton of money, and only a few real top players would warrant that type of corruption. A thousand bucks to a kid with nothing is a lot bigger of a deal than more millions to someone who already makes many millions. And like I said - there are only a handful of players worth doing that for anyway.
Taking it a step further, let's say Alabama booster X pays for some big recruit, and that recruit can't see the field as a frosh and is looking like a bust. So now that booster says forget it kid, I'm not paying for a scrub. So now you have kids (and their families) dealing with boosters to get the money they were promised or you have kids transferring schools because of money.
Other than knee-jerk hysteria and fear of change, what reason do you have to think that this sort of thing is more likely to go bad in an environment where such arrangements are licit, subject to regulation, and therefore can be negotiated and mediated without fear of institutional punishment (which currently includes extreme sanctions, like loss of eligibility and bizarrely legal forms of defamation)? If we compare this to the current environment, in which such deals have to happen under the table, in cash, and therefore without any kind of contractual protections, it could not be less clear what justifies your worry about an oversight regime freed of risible commitments to 'amateurism'.
...like the NFL and NBA is that they are not as competitive as colleges are. The NFL basically has a monopoly and team ownership collectively bargains with the athlete labor to establish the parameters in which they both profitably operate. The college landscape, by comparison is completely wide open, a wild west type environment.
Although some groupings of colleges (i.e., conferences) tend to work together and agree on things, there is clearly vast differences in the modus operandi between different conferences, let alone different schools.
That is a huge part of the reason that I argue that schools will never, ever start officially paying players. The labor implications of that in such a wide open environment would be far too difficult to tackle and open up far too many headaches. The status quo of the default student-athlete model may seem quaint but it is also vastly more effective.
At this point, anything that happens to Tennessee is just "piling on," anyway. Their gross ineptitude during their transition from elite to mediocre has been punishment enough for any misdeeds.
Besides, it is becoming apparent that nobody is afraid of the NCAA anymore. It is only a matter of time before a mass secession or a major overhaul.
I'm sure it was an NCAA violation. I also have no moral outrage. Jalen took exactly this kind of money from Ed Martin, back in the day, and in the Fab Five documentary, he stood up for it.
Plus, the ESS EE SEE and the BiG tried to get players' spending cash, for EXACTLY the reason Foster discussed. And the Indiana States of the world were outraged that they couldn't afford to compete, so they nixed it.
Thus, while I love anything that brings to light the $500 money handshakes and free hookers that the ESS EE SEE gives to recruits -- this ain't it. This is morally entirely proper.
I think of Nylo Sylvan
then they better be open to being cut when they don't perform. It's only fair. Just saying.
They are currently being systematically underpaid thanks to cartel behavior that would be illegal if any organization other than the NCAA tried it. Why should their working conditions become worse rather than better? They are being denied what they have rightfully earned, and for no articulable reason aside from the greed of entrenched powers. This is why there are courts.
Yeah, that's the thing though. They haven't "rightfully earned" jack. Their skills are worth what universities say they're worth -- which is four to five years of room and board. 99% of them aren't going pro, so I'd say that's a pretty sweet deal.
The universities "say" that for fairly self-serving reasons, no? What do you think the free market would say? I honestly don't get your supreme deference to universities when it comes to pegging the value of a college football player (scholarship) vs a coach (typically $2 million plus)
Free market would probably look at how replaceable you are as well as how much revenue you generate. Michigan football generates money, not the players individually. Can you name 10 USC football players? How about Texas? If people who aren't fans don't know them, then they don't generate real revenue.
And coaches salaries? Seriously? Are you the guy that thinks teachers should be paid more than athletes? This is ridiculous...the day you can easily Nick Sabans and Urban Meyers is the day their salaries won't be as high. It's not your worth, it's how easy it is to replace you. Hoke has made this university serious money, Devin. Gardner has not...yet.
who always seemed to have a quote to fit any occasion. When asked if he thought cf coaches should be paid more than the university president and professors, he quickly retorted, "Well, that's for you to determine, but remember every time I give a test it's witnessed by 85,000 people in the classroom, and when I give finals we are watched by millions." Then he went onto say, "You know I've been told those professors don't allow anyone in their classes when giving a test. Just how do they get away with that?"
Good thing there's no true free market in operation here. Sports are not remotely a free market. Labor contracts, league rules,roster limits, not to mention the mandatory arbitration in many contracts.
College? Also not a free market. And even under the scholarship-as-stipend plan, it wouldn't be-fixed compensation rate. Hideous information asymmetries between universities and players. Roster limits. De facto ability of schools/conferences to exclude players.
So... Fuck your free market. Seriously. This is a painfully stupid argument.
I had to post it twice.
Exactly. They aren't employees. If they want to be employees, they can go play football in Canada or wait until they're 3 years out of college and go to the NFL or go get a job somewhere else. They have choices. They're choosing to be amateur athletes who don't get paid, because all of the ancilliary benefits are better. If you don't like that package, pick a different one.
But nobody does, so it must not be that bad.
But nobody does, so it must not be that bad.
You cannot possibly think that's a good inference.
Brandon Jennings decided to play pro basketball in Japan (or somewhere overseas) instead of being a poor college kid for a year. No one has followed his lead.
Why is that? My guess is that college, despite not getting paid, is the better options. Better coaching, better facilities, better marketing of yourself. You get to live like a celebrity among a bunch of people your own age and you get a free education in case your sport doesn't work out.
Right now - that's the best package. If playing pro basketball in Japan or pro football in Canada was a better option, all things considered, kids would do it. But it's not. This is like if I asked my boss for a raise when no other company was willing to give me a package as good as I was currently getting. Why would he do it?
It would be like asking your boss for a raise if
1. he first conspires with hundreds of other similar corporations to pay you well under your market value, say by offering you things like experience and job training and the ability to audition for future employment by people who aren't in his cartel instead of any pay above something approximating what he believes your cost of living should be;
2. his cartel threatens to cut off all of your benefits, including your future ability to work in the same industry in your native country, if you get compensated for any other work you might do;
3. all corporations in the same industry who aren't in his cartel agree not to allow you to apply there for two years; and
4. your boss and his associates are making millions of dollars a year based on what consumers are willing to pay to enjoy the fruits of your labor, for which you are not being compensated at market rates.
If all of those things happened, then it would be like asking your boss for a raise when no other company was willing to give you a package as good as you were currently getting. But it would be totally fucking moronic for somebody in a different industry to give you shit for thinking you were getting a raw deal, not to mention that your boss's opinion of whether you should get a raise should quickly become irrelevant and he and the rest of his cartel get class-actioned like whoa.
You and your cartel talk. Bottom line - these kids have options, and they don't take them because where they're at is still better. Like a poster said above - this all went down when Arian Foster could have gone pro, but didn't. So college couldn't have been that bad, right?
Maybe your friendly household lawyer can clue you in on what cartels are and why you're just plain confused and just plain wrong about the bottom line.
Is that you feel like there is a "market" value for these players. In many cases, their true market value is less than what they are getting in tuition, room, and board. What's the value of a Richard Ash? More than $85k a year? Not likely. If you base it off of jersey sales, then there are only 4 or 5 players with any value. Ask yourself this...which players have made you MORE of a Michigan fan? Who's jersey did you have to have that you wouldn't have purchased anyways? Do you check mgo more because of Devin? Do you go to more games when Jake Ryan is back? No..they have no real Value because college fans support regardless of who's on the team and who isn't.
Yeah, I completely agree with this. Most of these guys are making way more than their market value. Almost all of them, in fact. So, as a college football recruit, you can either accept the package as is, meaning you get no more if you're good and no less if you're bad, or you can choose anything else - pay for college on your own, don't go to college at all, go play football in the arena league or Canada or something.
Is that you think a guy like Ash getting a (non-guaranteed) education and subsistence wage is a reason to prevent a guy like Manziel from getting paid what he's worth. TAMU didn't raise an additional 300 million dollars last year for nothing. If players could do out in the open what Cam Newton did under the table, we'd find out what their market values were, and I bet we'd find out that the top 100 guys on the 247 composite are worth a lot more than tuition, room, and board.
I would agree that their skills are what prospective bidders would pay for them on an open market. But focusing on 'what universities say they're worth' doesn't track that, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, there are also boosters, who would be bidding on their services if they were allowed to, so limiting the market to universities artificially holds down market values to begin wtih. But more importantly, universities, through the NCAA, operate as a textbook cartel to hold down prices: if you understand 'what universities say they're worth' as meaning what universities are currently paying for them, then I don't see how you can ignore the distance between the cartel-lowered prices and what the actual market value of their skills would be. But if you understand 'what universities say they're worth' as what universities (or universities and their boosters) would be willing to pay them were it not for NCAA restrictions, then your estimation of that value is off. Some universities would clearly pay more if they could.
Before we can even begin to have the paying players conversation in a meaningful way, we need to know how much per year a football player gets when you add up out of state tuition, food, academic help, access to facilities, stipends, rent money, free clothing, etc.
Is there a good place to find this information?
The problem is that it varies so much, it's hardly worth doing. Kids at Stanford get 5 times (I'm speculating) more than a kid at Marshall.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that they get a great deal as it is. If the argument is that they're not being adequately compensated then it makes sense to figure out what they ARE being compensated. At that point I think the argument falls through. I obviously don't expect it to convince anyone who disagrees, but it'd be nice to have a ball park.
Many are getting much more based solely on the university they attend, although their skills might be bringing in just as much money as the kid that plays for M or Stanford, Duke, et. al. There was a time, not too long ago that a Husker-any Husker-could attend the state university for roughly what you or I would pay for a year at a Michigan juco. Obviously, they are not being compensated as much as they would if they were playing for a more prestiguous academic institution. I think just a few years ago, a study indicated the average M grad would make something like 700K more than the average MSU grad. I am aware that people play with numbers to get them to do their bidding. However, no one can argue that a M diploma is worth more than a NU diploma. ^Damn, wish I could just double hit enter like everyone else and get a new para. Can't so here goes. Any stipend must be the same throughout the FBS landscape, even though it's obvious, purely from an academic standpoint, many are being given much more as it stands now. Look at Devin's case. He's working on his masters, but how many kids have the maturity and are driven enough to do so while still putting all that time into practice. The average football player, just like the student who is working his way through school, should be paid a fair price for that time alone spent on the practice field, taking away his time from concentrating on his school work. Give every kid a 700.00 stipend, in addition to his scholly and have it last for the time he's in school, not unlike the GI Bill. If they attend summer school and take a full load, stipend continues. If not, it stops. Doesn't really matter dollar amount, as long as it's not too large and is equal to all players, from walk-on earning scholly as to no. 1 recruited player in the nation. If association with booster becomes public knowledge where there is an exchange of money, school does not get sanctioned. Player merely forfeits right to play, booster is not allowed to associate with student/athletes and if this is found out after the fact, current players are not accountable for actions of their predecessors.
Even if they pay the players or allow them to get jobs the under the table money still flows. The main focus is $$ for most of these kids so allow them to chase it. Give them a portion of jersey sales, allow them to get jobs and lower the draft eligibility requirements (1 yr out of HS). Some players will stay get an education, earn some cash and polish their game. The rest will earn some cash and get out of dodge.
Yeah, I'd be in favor of these kids getting small amounts of money, but it seems like a slippery slope. Let them get grand a month or something, I don't know. I just don't want it to get to boosters bidding for recruits or anything like that. And I'd obviously be OK with the draft age lowered. Make it like the NBA - one and done. Not many will do it. The ones who can, awesome. But most players can't even go after 3 years, I doubt you'd see many go after 1 or 2.
The draft eligibility is an NFL rule, not the NCAA. And as an employer, the NFL has every right to require a certain amount of experience, most employers do. Personally I think the NFL should require them to either have a degree or a certain number of credits in finance and marketing.
But if you are preventing someone from earning money, you damn well better make sure they have access to basic essentials. Food, water etc, at ALL times that they are under your rule. Period. Not just weekdays.
Why? First year law students aren't allowed to have jobs and no one pays for their food. I don't think med students are allowed to hold jobs and no freebies for them. You know, these football players could all take out student loans like many of us had to. My wife had a full-ride scholarship for undergrad, but she took out loans for her living and social costs.
The law school doesn't profit grossly from law school students, high tuition be damned
What school prohibits first years from having jobs? Not any that I've heard of
Are you certain they are allowed to? I am not. Honestly the education they get is one thing, most of them do not come for that however. They are recruited. They trade a service for that scholarship, in turn missing out on massive profits that their work creates. The cost of that scholarship compared to the massive amount of money they generate do not equal themselves. That delta figure is massive. Im not vying for a pay for performance system, i am vying for free food and water. If law or med students can not work, than they should get the same benefits.
But they get free food and water. Plus a bunch of other free stuff.
Not on the weekends
My understanding is that the school frowns on students having a job; I can't imagine they can actually preclude you from attending if you do have a job. Of course, you will likely struggle that first year because of the time commitments associated with school (unless you have a great situation with your work), but that's on you, not the school.
who has made great money for their university while attending. Show me one that has 1115,00 watching live and millions others on t.v., and show me one that barring unforseen future medical problems, can't practice their scamming well into their 70s. Then we're talking somewhat realistic shit.
So, basically what you've done is make clear that you're not really interested in having a reasonable discussion about this.
First poster: If Q, then P.
Second: But here is an instance of Q but not-P!
You: Oh yeah? 7!
Took me a couple of tries to track your comment. But the comment you're criticizing makes a perfectly valid point: WolvinLA2 has failed to identify a Q-but-not-P case. You're ignoring far too many relevant facts by the time you're equating 1Ls and med students (both of whom can have jobs anyway, as far as I know) with D1 football players.
QP doll. (Idk too much Seinfeld.)
I understand what you're trying to get at, but what you've actually identified is that the original argument (if Q then P) is inadequate. Notice that the comparison is NOT D1 football players to 1Ls/ med students. It's one instance of not allowing people to earn money and another instance of not allowing people to make money. They might only be analogous insofar as they're not allowed to make money, but that's as far as they need to be (since if not-P and Q, then it's not the case that if Q then P).
That there are a bunch of disanalogies between 1Ls and what we want to say about football players is certainly relevant if you want to extrapolate from WolvinLA2's response that we therefore don't have ANY reason to pay football players, but I don't think anyone's trying to do that.
Hey, I plan to practice my scamming well into my 90s, don't fuck with my longevity.
You can work up to 20 hours per week while enrolled full time (12 credits) per ABA rules. You can work with no restrictions as a part time student.
There you have it
No, that is not right. I went to Michigan for law school and had a job during my first year. I also had a partial scholarship to law school for my first year, and I wasn't expected to ram my head against 300 pound linemen. I don't think the football players are being "exploited" per se, but I certainly don't think that the current system fairly compensates football players for the actual amount of time they put in vis-a-vis the revenue being generated by the football program.
But had the energy to lift weights year round and run for hundred yard games in the SEC.
Yeah, that's why he took money.
My son attended UT and knew AF...here's what he said:
"Maybe he could have afforded food if he wasn't smokin blunts and downin 40's with his niggaz."
that's what we needed
Fitting comment coming from someone with an SEC education.
Let's see, athletes get room, board, tutors, and tuition for 4 -5 years. For out of state, what is that these days? 400k? Athletes making 100k a year is plenty. I graduated 12 years ago with an engineering degree and I still don't make that much. Players don't need to be paid any more than they already are, otherwise division one would be the 10-20 schools that can afford to pay the players. What we need is an NCAA with teeth to be able to sic cops on all the cheating programs. Or hell, arent they making a ton of money? Why can't they hire an army of private investigators?
How the fuck is this possible? I know people that graduated from UMich engineering starting out making 50K in non-SV markets? I'm so sick of the argument of "oh I don't make that much" or "I had to pay my way". Sorry not sorry you were just an average joe.