Players are organizing to protest the NCAA
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
And nobody put a gun to the head of the players and forced them to attend, either. They also made that choice. And if they couldn't have ever sniffed college without their football skills, shouldn't they be really fucking grateful for the opportunity? To get something that people have to pay a lot of money for, and all they have to do is play football? This of course assumes I agree with the notion about the stupidity of football players, which I don't. If they worked as hard in the classroom, in high school and in college, as they do on the football field, most could get into college somewhere.
(Assuming we're talking about football players, here, of course. We seem to be. Although you only mentioned it once. How about other athletes, who provide zilch to the school and still get the same huge scholarships? Is that unfair exploitation also?)
September 22nd, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
You're right, nobody forced them to play. Okay, now, consider this: you have the opportunity to be the first person in your family to go to college because you're an extremely talented football player. What do you do: decline a scholarship to college because it's to play football?
The fact is, I don't know that we can fairly say "IT'S A TRAP" for players really wanting cash payments. Based on the content of this board, we've all been disgusted by the greyshirting and scholarship pulling that goes on at many major schools to clear out injured players or those that aren't up to snuff.
We pride ourselves on taking well-rounded young men for the football program; not just football skills matter, but grades and attitude (unless all of that fawning over academics has been total horseshit). How do you think it feels to be literally discarded off to the side due to injury? Turns out that all that mattered was their football talents, not any of the other character shit to which we had paid so much lipservice. Wouldn't YOU be upset that after sacrificing your body and best lifetime earning opportunity for the school, you were tossed aside and had your education pulled? Wouldn't you be bitter if you had a lifetime of knee/head/ankle/elbow/wrist pain because you gave it all to the school and they tossed you for an injury? Wouldn't you be bitter if a university with a major hospital system made you pay for the treatment that resulted from playing for that school?
I'm not saying that Michigan is necessarily guilty of these things. What I'm saying is a lot of these other schools likely are.
The kids that make the committment to play are 16-18; they see glitz and CFB glamor all over TV every week. Then they get to school and can nominally afford to go out to the movies while coaches make millions.
Whether or not YOU think it's objectively fair, you need to look at the totality of the circumstances in the PLAYERS' positions. Yeah, we're all SO morally superior because rabble rabble damn kids can't appreciate what they have. You try what they're doing in their environment, knuckling under OUR expectations. Then come back to me and say none of their complaints are valid.
September 22nd, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
Wait a minute. Nobody has their education pulled because of injury. When they get hurt, the school pays for their care, and if their career is over, they still get their scholarship. That's what medical scholarships are. The outrage is because their football career is unwillingly over, not their education, and because it allows unscrupulous coaches like Saban to twist the rules to his advantage.
Your assertions that schools force their players to pay for their own medical care and cut their education short is flatly untrue, and the moral outrage over it is misplaced.
September 22nd, 2013 at 4:47 PM ^
I know what a medical scholarship is. I also know that, on this board, we have specifically cited instances of players being forced to transfer due to injury or not being good enough anymore.
Let's suppose, however, that you're entirely right. This still doesn't mean that players aren't forced out of a program/off scholarship to make room for other, better players. If a player hasn't done anything wrong (besides "not be good enough), and loses a scholarship because they aren't "good enough," then I think there's enough moral outrage there go around. Promise an 18 year old a scholarship to play sports, they play hard, then they still lose it.
Also, the reasonable inference from requesting medical expenses due to injury is that all of these expenses accrued after college would not be covered. Yes, as a matter of law, you're limited to a single recovery. As a matter of morality, I think that injuries incurred in service to the school/team merit the school footing the bill thereafter. These aren't NFL players that blew their savings and can't pay for care.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
...you make it sound like slave labor. These kids WANT to play the sports they love and are tremendously privileged to do it on a prominent stage for universities that offer a future to them.
And I find it offensive that you believe that these kids should be treated preferentially. They are so blessed to have the skills they have. Add to that the opportunity to play for a prestigious institution of higher learning at no cost and they've won a lottery that 95% of their fellow students envy.
I could be wrong, but I believe Denard Robinson valued his education. I believe that's a big reason he chose Michigan. His NFL career notwithstanding, I think if you asked him whether his play in exchange for his education was a fair trade, he would answer a resounding "yes."
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
Where did I say they should be treated preferentially? The fact is they already are and have been for decades. You don't think they get preferential treatment gaining admission to a university that a fair majority of them would not have gotten into based on their academic performances? I'm specifically referring to football/basketball -- this tends to be less of an issue in non-revenue generating sports. If you're really that outraged at their entitlement for having the audacity to ask to not be restricted in what they may do with their likeness (how preferential), then you should be livid at football players getting into Michigan with lower GPAs and standardized test scores than you sacrificed to achieve. If I were you, I'd boycott college sports all together!
September 22nd, 2013 at 9:59 AM ^
If the players want to be compensated for their participation in college athletics, I say eliminate athletic scholarships for those athletes. Lets see how many players can afford to play when they have to pay their own way through college on what some booster is offering them.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
Not a terrible idea. I bet if you took a vote among all college athletes - who work just as hard as football players - about whether they'd rather be compensated with scholarships and the perks they receive, or whether they'd rather get nothing from the school but be able to market their likenesses and autographs and such on the free market, I have no doubt the scholarship would win overwhelmingly. Absolute landslide.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
But why does it have to be a zero-sum game. Who gets hurt by allowing players to market their likeness? It already happens -- they just don't get compensated for it. As to your previous point, for most athletes, yes, because they actually take more out of the school than they provide. No one is really going to pay anyone on the Women's Water Polo team for a TV spot. I'm not in favor of the school's making direct payments to player -- I don't beleive that's a feasible option. Most school simply can't afford it.
And I'm sure if you asked most non-revenue athletes something along the lines of "Hey guys, aren't you just so glad that you're getting a free education off the backs of the football program? Oh and btw do you guys really mind if Manziel does a commercial or something for whoever and gets paid for it"? Most would not care. Sure the opportunity to go out and market would be available to everyone and if market forces dictate that there is a market out there for the captain of the Women's Water Polo team to make a few bucks, then fine -- that's all I'm saying, is let the market decide.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
...I think if we extrapolate a trend line forward (and not that far forward, by the way), you'll have agents and ad agencies knocking on the dorm room doors of these kids providing a tremendous distraction and creating chaos. It just gets uglier as time progresses, no matter how you slice it.
September 22nd, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^
The problem with turning it into a free-for-all, though, is that the $10,000 jockstrap quickly becomes an issue. And that's not really the market. That's just a rich Texas or USC or Alabama booster buying the best players for his team. I know as Michigan fans we're supposed to pull for a system that prevents the Indiana States from dragging us down with voting volume, but the market free-for-all doesn't make winners out of the best programs. It makes winners out of the schools with the richest boosters. That's a problem.
I would not be opposed to a little bit more of a structured way in which players could market themselves. Example: Let them sell things if they want to sell them. If they don't want their rings, fine. If they want to sell autographs, fine. Set up an NCAA clearinghouse to sell them through. Give the player like 10 or 20% right now and put the rest in trust to be collected when he leaves school. If someone wants Johnny Football for a local ad spot, have the schools hire agents (on commission, so they actually work out a good deal) to negotiate that and do the same with the money. Would it eliminate under-the-table payments? Of course not. But then at least the players would have some outlet, and if someone finds himself unmarketable, boo-hoo. And at least it wouldn't legitimize a waterfall of cash to Joe High School Kid for no other reason than to buy him up for Alabama. That is not a desirable college football world.
September 22nd, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
This is something I'm fine with. I'm not in favor of the boosters paying 10K for a good play or something. I just think if a guy wants to do a commercial or sell his autographs, he should be allowed to.
September 22nd, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
Yes. It's not either "wild west" or "complete amateurism." Laugh as we might at the idea of regulating these sponsorships, there's no reason to think you couldn't. How? Make the school liable too.
Student athletes that are willing to market their image can submit their names to the school. Agents can then submit a bona fide sponsorship offer to the AD for X number of players. If the player is interested, the agent, AD, and player can sit down. They can make a deal for a certain promotion within reasonable parameters (compensation in relation to a scale--why not allow it to go up for each year the player is there? It incentivizes staying in school for the best players, minimizes attrition, increases graduation rates.)
Let's pretend the scale says that for each year the student is in school, they're capped at: 25% value of the scholarship, 50% scholarship, 75% scholarship, 90% scholarship cap thereafter. Yeah, there could be schools that have a slightly higher cap. It wouldn't be a significant amount, though.
Let's also say the school is the clearinghouse for the funds. The school will be a fiduciary of the students, whether or not the student actually has a deal. Nothing like the term "fiduciary duty" makes a large, compliance-sensitive organization pause before engaging in funny business. Here's another good idea: allow the universities to collect fees directly from the promoters (bids on offers, other contract fees). Those fees can be put in a trust for injured players.
Fairness? Okay. To balance it out so it doesn't turn into just a few players are getting paid, how about: we allow an agent/organization to pitch an entire team for promotions. Even if the individual players that are getting paid are on that team, their earnings will still be capped based on the scale. This will also provide some incentive not to sign 1 year max-deal.
For the record, I just thought that up. As I typed it. Stream of consciousness. If a lazy third year law student can cook that up from his couch, I am supremely confident the NCAA can work out a reasonable compromise. Also, if anyone has Emmert's number, go ahead and ring him. Pretty sure I just solved his problems. I'd like to be paid.
September 22nd, 2013 at 7:42 PM ^
Would you have the dollars earned up to the value of the scholarship go back to the school, paying them back first?
September 23rd, 2013 at 9:06 AM ^
I don't understand why you make this out to be a zero sum game. It's not all or nothing -- some players produce more value than the schools are able or willing to provide them. To get compensated to what they think their true value is, they can go out to the market. Why should they have to reimburse the school? The school still gets Johnny Manziel or Reggie Bush on the field. I understand people "watch Michigan to watch Michigan, not to watch Denard" but you're simply just replacing another good player with the idea that he will be replaced by another good player. Let's say Michigan is full of bad players -- for a long time. Would attendance and interest not drop and not create new younger fans?
September 23rd, 2013 at 4:55 PM ^
It's not necessarily zero-sum. Beleive me, I see both sides of the issue.
My point was only that if the endorsements made by a particular player exceed the value of what they've been given as a scholarship, and they compensate the school for that, then it takes away some of the opposition's argument. You can't as easily say "But they are being paid/compensated with a free education, so you shouldn't pay them"
It's just a thought (similar to the post above).
September 22nd, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
You know who gets hurt by marketing a player's likeness? The player. The college student who is supposed to be spending his time doing things like concentrating on school, football, and being a teenager is now swamped with opportunities to film commercials, sign autographs, make appearances, etc.
There is a reason for the supposed "Heisman jinx" where the winner tends to do poorly in his bowl game. They spend more time in December doing promotional stuff than practicing.
Can you imagine the clusterfuck Johnny Manziel would be if the NCAA allowed him to do commercials and promotional events? Nike or Gatorade would have to fly him back to A&M on saturdays just to play the game.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
If colleges are allowed to pay players. Teams like Alabama will put the second tier teams out of business. Bama will buy the best players, doctors, facilities (they already have), and put a team like GT out of business.
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
September 22nd, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
While the player is in school, they should be paid like work study. They need the basics like we all did. Food, water, shelter, transportation, etc...If the player graduates, they receive their annuity or investment money the school has paid for each year.
I don't know what the answer is but this discussion will only get worse as this drags on.
September 22nd, 2013 at 11:06 AM ^
Serious question: can college athletes take out normal student loans? What, 70-80% of other college students take out loans and go into DEBT to have the opportunity to get a college degree and athletes (not even just football players at the 20 schools which have ADs in the black) want their entire lives funded, PLUS MORE? Here's an idea too all these college athletes: let's go full America and let the free market decide what you deserve. No more athletic scholarships. The schools can pay you whatever they want. Mark Ingram gets $3 million a year. A men's tennis player? Well, he's gotta start paying for court time and for gas money to get to his games. Even more fun: let's not have these insanely low admissions standards for athletes and see if they can even get themselves accepted in the first place. In my perfect world, the schools keep the sports which, overall, add value to the school (noteriety, donations, advertisements, etc), which would probably be football, basketball and hockey at Michigan. Then use the surplus of AD money and give scholarships to deserving students who can't afford tuition or use it to steal great students away from schools like MIT, CalTech or Harvard to better Michigan's academics.
September 22nd, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^
September 22nd, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
So lets expand this to everyone that gets a scholarship! Guess what? Now that you have an academic scholarship you're not allowed to get a job or have any outside income!
September 22nd, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
September 22nd, 2013 at 12:22 PM ^
You can't get anywhere in life if you don't ask. When you apply for a job, go for a promotion or ask for a raise you are asking for something. You will never sell anything if you don't ask for the sale. It seems like people are see the act of asking as the same thing as begging. The players are not begging. They are pointing out the value they are providing and asking for more in return. How is that different then you asking for a raise or a salesman selling you a car?
This does not mean they will get what they are asking for. That is between the player, their school and the NCAA. Arguing about how players are compensated and the rules for student athletes is a legitimate exercise. Condemning players for asking for more and declaring them ungrateful is disingenuous at best.
September 22nd, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^
I'm all for the schools being able to provide a monthly (or weekly would probably be better) stipend to the players across all sports to compensate them for the money they bring in. I don't think you can allow outside money to be a part of the equation however, that's opening Pandora's Box.
For it to happen, the big schools are going to have to break away from the small schools and be their own division/association. The NCAA is currently too big to be useful.
September 22nd, 2013 at 8:46 PM ^
Not to mention they don't have to pay taxes on any of it