They just HAD to show that hit on Vincent Smith...
tend to be too slapsticky. this was no exception in my opinion.
Slap stick yet some still view it as lefit news source.
i love the ending, "woah woah woah you gotta hand that off to my guy over here he's 20 to 30 yds"
So, presumably collective bargaining will do away with illegal forward handoffs?
well no more running backs throwing the ball at least, since they wont have the proper union certification
That video is funny, but I still find myself buying absolutely none of it. The thing that all of this leaves out is that "pay" is not always just money. Being on a college football team is awesome, and the opportunity to play pro football is even better. It's the same reason people take jobs at the big talent agencies for minimum wage and no benefits - because there is so much else that you get, and you might end up being a hollywood agent.
Why does every recruit tweet that he's blessed when he gets a college scholarship? Because being a college athlete is an awful deal? Doubt it.
That's another part of this whole debate where people are split. I own a Denard jersey (my wife bought it for me). If Denard wasn't the big name on the team that year, I would have still purchased a jersey, just with a different number (or maybe the same number, referring to a different player). I think jersey sales go up during years when the team has more success, but that can be for a million different reasons as well.
Thats all fine until the university starts selling their jersey and they don't get any additional benefits. If a person at a big agency writes a good script they get paid for it, and they can go outside the agency to get paid if they need to. If a college football player excites a fanbase and sells jerseys and tickets they get no additional money and there is nowhere for them to go and still pursue football.
Fun fact. Pro athletes don't get compensated for jersey sales. No matter what the NCAA does or does not do, I highly, highly doubt this will ever be a factor.
(Edit: That was supposed to come off as more informative than snarky, but I still think the information is highly relevant.)
That's not true in the NFL. Jerseys (and other things involving player likenesses, like trading cards and video games) are licensed collectively by the players unions, which distribute the royalties evenly. So, Tom Brady will get the same benefit as Jeremy Gallon regardless of the difference in the quantity of jerseys they're selling, but that's not the same thing as saying they don't get compensated.
Technically, your point would be valid, but in reality, that would completely undermine the argument of selling jerseys. If we point to a #16 jersey selling and say it's unreasonable that Denard didn't get compensated, you can't make that case if they're all compensated equally. That's the equivalent of just raising the base salary.
Players are also penalized for switching their numbers in the NFL as happened to Adrian Peterson when he wanted to change numbers:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/01/adrian-peterson-wanted-…
They work in an incredibly dangerous industry for long hours which has a monopoly, and which fixes wages and benefits below market value.
Even if, for SOME people, it is a good deal, that doesn't exempt the ENTIRE INDUSTRY from the kind of labor laws that affect everyone else. It's like saying "we hire really poor people, so if we only pay them five dollars an hour that's more than they would get otherwise, and they can always quit, so the minimum wage crap is a cop-out."
Exactly. You can call being a college athlete a good deal, but it's not really a fair one.
Spot on TrueBlue25. However, I think some universities treat their athletes pretty fairly. I love college football, but some of the practices of the NCAA are downright repugnant, especially in football and basketball. If the NCAA wants to have a morally legitimate claim to being 'amateur' it should stop doing almost everything it can to make more money, including many practices that harm student-athletes.
*spends an hour trying to write up a long, thought out response with no links to distracting cat gifs*
*re-reads it a few times to make sure nothing sounds stupid once written down*
*Hits save and nods to self in approval*
*looks two comments above and sees BiSB wrote everything he wanted to say in about 1/4 of the words*
*Realizes entire life is a joke and weeps gently in recliner*
Yeah, I understand the other side of the argument, I just don't buy it. Partly because I don't believe they are employees, and partly because I don't believe in most labor laws to begin with.
I know your last sentence in quotes is supposed to be a joke, but it just points out the difference in viewpoints. If I owned a business, and I hired a bunch of unemployed people, paying them 5 bucks an hour, I'd be a bad guy. If instead of doing that, I go overseas and pay people in Southeast Asia 2 bucks an hour (meaning those Americans are back to making zero bucks an hour) I'm all square. That's something I have a hard time reconciling in my head.
Two thoughts:
A lot of people wouldn't agree that you're all square when you move your facilities to SE Asia (I have mixed feelings on the subject, fwiw).
The minimum wage is a tough issue, IMO, but one thing you have to take into account is that at some point it's not worth it to have a job if your income is low enough. People will retort that the job market will correct for this, but history shows that not to be true. The people who built the railroads, dug the canals, etc. were nearly slaves.
Oh, I am surely against moving your labor overseas, but I meant all square in terms of legality. It's illegal to pay Americans $5 an hour, but it's legal to pay someone overseas $2 an hour for the same job (and then we all complain about it happening).
My retort to your last paragraph is that if it gets to the point where it's not worth it to have a job if your income is low enough, quit that job. That goes for people who make over minimum wage, too. But I think that option should be with the individual, not the government. If you don't think it's worth it to work for $5 an hour, don't do it. But if your neighbor Dave does think it's worth it because he has no other way to pay his bills, let him do it.
Well sure the United States can't make other countries conform to our laws but that doesn't make our laws bad. A person can't survive on $5 an hour in the United states over the long term, whether or not a person in se Asia can survivor on $2 an hour is irrelevant to that fact. Even though you take your 5,000 jobs to se asia, the thousands of people who work in the US at minimum wage still benefit from that law and it is on overall larger benefit than the loss of your business. If every person currently working minimum wage was dropped to $5/hour so that you stayed in the US it would be an overall negative impact (I guess in my opinion). The role of government in this case is to work as a counter agent to companies who are driven by profit to ensure a basic standard of living. You can disagree with that being governments role but then all sorts of regualtions would be thrown out, like workplace safety laws.
The problem is that some people - out of desparation - will work for next to nothing. There will be a race to the bottom.
I agree with what you are saying but how is that relavent to a discusiion on college athletes who are receiving a hell of a lot more than minimum wage in compensation. Players housing and food are paid for, their tuition and books are paid for, their academic tutors are paid for, health insurance is paid for. If you add it all up you will see even mentioning minimum wage in this conversation is rediculous.
My feeling on this is these kids are in an apprenticeship program. They are being trained and taught a skill that the elite will use in a pro leage somewhere in the world. They are taught diet and exercise routines, they are taught techniue, they are given exposure and marketed to future employers (whether it be in football or through some course of study) all while being justly compensated. I don't get the monopoly bit either..there are semi pro leagues all over the country, its an alternative route. It pales in comparison but how it the the NCAA's fault?
I will say I agree that they should have the right to collectively bargain. And the Universities should have the right to say thanks but no thanks and get different kids who want to work for the compensation package they are offering.
Given your view on unionization, I'm glad you've said so much other ridiculous stuff on this thread. But obviously Dave wants to be an indentured servant duh that's why he's chewing on that shoe leather it's Dave talk for yippee five dollars!
"I don't believe they are employees" - how so? What factors point against it being an employer-employee relationship?
Stay tuned next time when WolvinLA2 continues to ignore this question because it cannot be answered because his position is risible.
It's the same reason people take jobs at the big talent agencies for minimum wage and no benefits - because there is so much else that you get, and you might end up being a hollywood agent.
The thing is, you can't really compare the NFL and the NCAA to any other job industry as they are both essentially monopolies. If you want to play football straight out of high school, you have three options: college, CFL, or Arena League.
To compare this to a job industry, the NCAA would be like an dangerous and extremely risky 3-4 year unpaid internship in another country with high upside and high downside with thousands of additional competing applicants every year, while the CFL/Arena League are two generic, go-nowhere, minimum wage jobs with very few openings every year. This is obviously not a good job market.
***
My issue here is this: while the football/basketball athletes do get some tangible benifits like yearly scholarships, some amount of free meals, and housing, they also have to watch other people profit off of their likeliness while not only recieving jack shit for it in return, but being punished for trying to do the same shit that the NCAA is doing. Johnny Manziel might be a tool, but there is absolutely NO REASON why he shoyuldn't be able to charge some money to sell his own damn autograph on the back of jersey with his number on the back of it that was just bought from Texas A&M's apparel store. Factor that in with the questionable handling of scholarships for injured players and I see no reason why the players should not at the very least have someone fighting for their rights in such an unbalanced and gated market.
Common sense tells us that someone should be able to profit from their own autograph, but if you're talking about changing a rule like that, I think you have to think about the consequences. People can rant about big schools already having an advantage, but I think there are 2 things worth noting about a potential change to this.
First, there would be no debate anymore. Big schools recruit better and we all know it, but I think it's important to add that they don't always recruit better, especially in basketball and smaller sports, and that if you believe the college athletic department budget numbers, there are a lot more smaller schools than many want to admit.
The other part is that it's hard to clarify how you are going to allow autographs. Common sense says anyplace at anytime, but if that's the rule, it's hard not to imagine schools spending significant funds to ensure that the autograph sessions are a success. For instance, Michigan promises recruits to spend $1000 advertising every autograph session to ensure that 1000 people show up paying $5 a piece (random numbers selected). My point is, you are still going to need some controls on a policy like autographs or it's pretty easy to see it get out of hand.
Also, I'm pretty sure I remember reading in some of the legal materials for the O'Bannon case that the NCAA can create rules around fairness, or there's at least precedent for it. Using some of the arguments I just described, I think this is a pretty strong one. Maybe not, but if you're going to give the players more, I think a base salary/stipend is the most logical approach.
The reason the autograph rules are in place is to prevent Joe Millionaire booster from going up to the #1 recruit in the country and saying "I will pay you $10,000 for your autograph at your first practice with my favorite college".
There is no way to regulate something like that and it will just turn into the biggest schools with the richest alums buying players services.
So can anyone actually point to an athlete who has been injured and lost their scholarship because of it?
I've heard of athletes getting injured and being moved to an academic scholarship to free up a spot for the respective team but where is the situation where they have gotten a "well thanks for playing good luck and get out".
If anything the schools have shown the exact opposite reaction when a player has gotten hurt (the young man from Rutgers being a good example).
And this video just makes Kain Colter look like a liar in my opinion. He claims there is "no where else to go play" which is obviously not true are there is the arena league and the CFL. He also says "you hear all the stories about guys getting injured and losing their scholarships". If this happened he would be point at an example and screaming to villify the NCAA even more.
There is obviously a huge amount of non-monetary value associated with being on a college football team, that's why all the best players go there instead of the CFL out of high school.
The fact that there is other places to go means there is no monopoly. It just means that one places provides the highest value.
Second google result for "player loses scholorship."
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/for-college-scholarship-athletes-inju…
You should try looking it up next time.
"If you want to play football straight out of high school, you have three options: college, CFL, or Arena League. "
Or the hundreds of semi-pro leagues that exist throughout the USA.
There is no monopoly. You can go pro in football and basketball straight out of high school.
But almost no one does... because the compensation is WORSE.
The reason people take those jobs at talent agencies is simple supply and demand. The supply is high (people looking to get into Hollywood) and the demand is low (jobs at talent agencies). As a result the prices (wages) are very low.
So you're saying that same supply and demand argument doesn't work for college football? Supply is high (people looking to get into the NFL, or even just play in front of 100k+ and on national TV) and supply is low (D1 scholarship spots). Every high school football player wants to play college football. There are good arguments against mine, but this is not one of them.
Not trying to ge all argumentative ( I do like the good natured debate), but I believe you are making a mistake in saying the supply is high. While there certainly are plenty of kids who want to play D1 football, the number than can actually play/compete at the D1 level is extremely small.
Athletes tweet about it being a blessing because (a) they understand it is a great opportunity, and (b) they are teenagers and figure that's what you say. I don't see how making the "deal" a bit better for the players would change the overall feelings. I mean, what if the NCAA removed health care as part of the scholarship - athletes had to go through the regular student care like anyone else? Do you think the athletes would stop viewing it as a great opportunity and start tweeting "F*ck MSU, I guess I'll go there!"
And while there are people who accept minimum wage jobs with no benefits for the opportunity to be a hollywood agent, that doesn't mean everyone else has to accept those conditions in their situation. I mean, there's a very real chance you can die on a fishing boat of the Alaskan coast, but people take that risk because of the potential for a nice payday. Yet, we still have OSHA and most places have rules about what danger(s) they can expose their employees to. This idea that because one sector plays by different rules compared to others THAT should be the status quo doesn't make sense to me.
I still chuckle over what Stewart said back around March Madness time when this came up in another episode - something like:
"Unions are socialist collectives. Sports are about people coming together as a group working towards a common goal, each according to their own ability, putting the team ahead of the....OH MY GOD! Wait a minute...".
It seems like some don't see this rather important similarity sometimes.
...maybe there wouldn't be a rowing team anymore. The right to organize is not the right to have your demands met.
That seems to be the core problem. Most people agree that with the amount of money and risk of personal injury in football; football players may deserve some additional compensation. You hit the nail on the head becuase it is extremenly convieint not to treat them as employees.
Maybe separate revenue and non-revenue sports and remove title XI considerations toward the revenue sports?
But I don't think you can just "remove Title IX considerations" toward revenue sports just because you want to. And I think it brings up a good point. GM employees aren't less of employees than those at Google just because their company makes less money (or at times, no money). Or you could argue that rowers and football players are all employees of the same company, one that makes money.
GM employees aren't less of employees than those at Google just because their company makes less money (or at times, no money).
1.) But Google isn't forfeiting substantial chunks of it's annual revenue and openly debating about cutting back its research and development budget just to keep GM afloat. Again, you are comparing the NCAA to other, more competitive job industries.
2.) Many schools have funded rowing teams, swimming teams, polo teams, and plenty of other niche sports for decades, long before basketball and football were even sports, much less the two multibillion dollar cash cows they are today. I don't buy that taking a percentage out of the two largest revenue sports to compensate the players in those two sports will negatively affect any of the other sports.
Or you could argue that rowers and football players are all employees of the same company, one that makes money.
3.) Not to be a dick about it, but so what? The mail guy doesn't make the same amount of money as an account executive and it would be silly to suggest that he should. There is already a massive discrepancy between the revenue from football & basketball and the revenue of all of the other sports combined, so why should schools keep pretending that they are worth the same and they don't treat them differently? I would bet my future life savings that right now, Nick Saban makes more money than every other head coach in Alabama's athletic department combined.
First, love the sig.
I guess the question becomes how much do you expect this expense to be per revenue athlete? My guess is something based in the $5-10k per athlete per year range? Does that seems reasonable? You get about 100 scholarships in the basketbell and football so you are talking a cost to the schools of $500,000 - $1 million.
Where do you propose this money come from?
For schools like Michigan and Alabama no big deal because their ADepts make money. How about the ~200 D1 schools that don't make money?
That money is either going to come from cutting scholarships for non-revenue athletes or out of the general school fund in the form of a subsidy (which means less money for the general university population).
I think the issue is that a great college football player isn't playing for his 1 scholarship valued at $40k per year. He is playing for himself and about 100 scholarships for players who aren't great at a revenue sport. He is playing to add value to his university to help ensure continued success. He is playing for a chance to move up to the next level and knows that college football is the best way to develop himself and get the attention of the scouts at the next level.