Unverified Voracity Fought In T-Shirt Stalingrad
The T-shirt arms war is being lost. This aggression will not…
![BoLGFEmCUAENxXh[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/UV_9038/BoLGFEmCUAENxXh1.jpg "BoLGFEmCUAENxXh[1]")
…uh. This aggression will be tolerated. Just point that somewhere else, PCP-raging hell-coyote(?).
One dollar this is not a thing. Former Oregon QB Jake Rodrigues is transferring, and Michigan has just been mentioned as a school that has "reached out" by Scout West Coast recruiting guru Greg Biggins. Michigan would have four other available QBs by the time he was again eligible, so it doesn't seem likely he'll be heavily pursued.
The one thing that makes it seem even vaguely possible is the lack of a redshirt on Shane Morris. Rodrigues would have to sit out one year and then would be able to play three, which would restore one-a-year balance to the Morris-Speight-Malzone wave of QBs. Still: doubtful.
FWIW, Michigan did offer his first time around. He went off the board to Oregon in May, so Michigan didn't have much opportunity to make an impact.
I know I said I'd make these separate posts… but there's not enough for a full basketball recruiting post, so I'll just mention it here. CA PF TJ Leaf did visit briefly after playing at an AAU tourney in Indiana before catching his flight back to California:
"Michigan likes to run a point guard, a center and then three players who are versatile and can create," he said. "The coaches have brought up Glenn Robinson to me a couple times before as far as a comparison, but nothing too specific. They say I'm a perfect fit for the offense and I agree. I really like that about Michigan and I also really like the fact that Coach Beilein is under contract there until the 2019-2020 season. I don't have to worry about him not potentially being there if I was to play there."
Glenn Robinson plus about three inches (and minus three inches of vertical) sounds pretty good to me. Sounds like Michigan has sold him on both fit and the fact that Beilein ain't Tom Crean when it comes to legions of fans just waiting for an excuse to pull the lever on his ejector seat.
Michigan would be "at or near" the top with an offer and is looking to decide in January or February.
/waves tiny punt flag. For the Nth consecutive year the Big Ten leads college sports in filthy lucre. I used to think this was terrific until it became clear that the relatively narrow gaps in revenue are meaningless when it comes to competing in the sports that drive all the interest.
Purdue can offer ten million dollars to alum Kevin Sumlin and he's not leaving A&M, and even though SEC outfits have somewhat less money they also run significantly fewer teams than the Big 10 does on average. As the money has spiraled upwards the Big Ten's national reputation has spiraled down. So congratulations, various high-level administrator types who can now afford a third house. Everyone else should shrug.
See also: BTN on basic cable in New York now. That it got done so quickly without terms being disclosed suggests the BTN is coming in at a much lower price than it does elsewhere in the footprint, because obviously. Also the money, it does nossing.
But at least they're working out how to throw less of it away. The Iowa Gazette has a look at bowl ticket guarantees and the changes the Big Ten is finally imposing on them. First a boggling statistic given stubhub exists:
Top-10 teams Ohio State and Clemson rank among the nation’s most devout bowl travelers. However each school absorbed more than 11,100 tickets of their 17,500-ticket requirement to the Orange Bowl. Yet the Orange Bowl posted an attendance of 72,080.
Michigan sold 40.7 percent of its ticket allotment to the Tempe-based Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. Wisconsin and Minnesota sold barely one-third of their tickets to the Capital One and Texas bowls, respectively. Among Big Ten schools only Iowa (78.2 percent at the Outback) and Michigan State (94.5 percent at the Rose) sold more than half of their allotted tickets this year.
Despite no running game, no quarterback, a late-night December bowl game, and the high probability the market gets flooded with cheap tickets to a game far from sold out Michigan still sold almost half of their allotment. We love vacations, I guess.
Anyway, all those losses are pooled with the bowl payouts and then everyone gets an equal slice, so any "TEAM X LOST MONEY ON BOWL Y" headlines you read are fictional, at least for the Big Ten.
As for changes:
“We’re paying less money in a guarantee, but there will be years where they’ll make more money,” Outback Bowl President Jim McVay said. “There’s a shared revenue deal where the schools are going to keep all the money over a certain threshold."
The schools are going to get less terrible tickets, and of course it's now the Big Ten in charge of where schools go (for the most part). With the newly diverse slate of bowl locations it's no longer just Florida Florida Florida, so people can go other places for the warm-weather vacations they inexplicably crave.
Paternalism! MLive finds some former Michigan players and asks them about paying guys. They are generally against it*. David Cone:
"I think that (allowance) number should come up a little bit. It should. I came from a middle class family, it couldn't have covered Michigan, but they could help me out if I didn't want to eat what the team was eating, I could eat something else. (But others couldn't, and) that number has to come up.
"But I don't think kids should be paid differently. If they're paid differently, then it's a salary. If it's a salary, then you're an employee. And if you're an employee, you can be fired."
That argument is just so frustrating. It is the opposite of reality. Two BU hockey players just got "fired". It happens to a half-dozen Alabama players annually. Kansas State refuses to release Letitia Romero so she can transfer. Employees can enter into contracts that guarantee X in the event they get fired—Charlie Weis is laughing right now about this fact. There is a ton of law about the rights of employees in this country, and none about the rights of student athletes. Reclassifying them puts them in a position of power.
Cone is in favor of a player having right to his likeness, so at least there's that.
"If we give these kids money, we're opening up a can of worms for a different set of problems," former Michigan safety Marcus Ray said. "Casinos, expenditures on drugs and alcohol, giving them the means to finance some of that stuff."
This kind of thinking bugs me. We are perfectly happy to have baseball and hockey players sign contracts with huge signing bonuses without worrying that they'll end up playing Pai Gow in a den of ill repute. Everyone treats the first round of the NFL draft as a watershed moment where you buy your mom a pink Cadillac, but what happens when you're Denard Robinson instead of Teddy Bridgewater? Maturation is a gradual process that everyone approaches differently, and if there are some guys who will waste whatever's provided them (hello, Allen Iverson) that's unfortunate but it's no reason to prevent the guys who will just send it to mom from benefiting properly from their hard work and talent.
*[This is not a unanimous opinion. At the event we had last year with Chris Perry, Marlin Jackson, and Jerome Jackson all three were in favor of some level of payment. Marlin has a quote in this one on the conservative end of things; the other two guys were more strident, IIRC.]
Dey tik r jebs! Mikey Weber got one of those photoshops from Michigan.
u of m cold with these edits pic.twitter.com/kNH5paw29t
— Uncle Mike (@mikeweber25) May 21, 2014 It has been asserted that the photoshoppist* misspelled "All American" as "All Amercian," but I have it on good authority that this is a long game that ends with many hilarious references to the South Park episode "Goobacks" and convinces Mikey Weber that he should attend Michigan because of a cartoon about immigration from the future that probably came out when he was like eight or something.
Also I don't think Weber noticed it.
*[I am less careful about spelling photoshoppist than rappist.]
Interesting. The Eagles are embarking on a draft strategy wherein they draft almost exclusively guys who have graduated. Six of seven draftees this year were college graduates, and that is not a fluke:
Allen, who made the Big Ten Conference's all-academic team while at Wisconsin, is one of six Eagle draftees to be on track to graduate out of the seven players they selected. In today's game, that is unusual: This year, 98 college players went pro after their junior season, a record that marks a 34% increase from 2013 and an 85% increase from 2010. (That total doesn't include players who had playing eligibility left but had already graduated.)
The Eagles' operative theory is based on Patriot and Colt outfits laden with graduates that were successful. They seem to think that football is hard and complicated so smart people are better at it. Also people who go do things even if they are hard.
He told Kelly "the guys with degrees have what you are looking for. They are driven. If it's between two players, a degree might tip the scale. But at the time, I don't think he was even thinking of the NFL."
If there's something behind that it should benefit Michigan, which tends to take the high school equivalent of the guys the Eagles are looking for in the draft. Just as soon as our smart guys are old, anyway.
Welp. Mike Babcock says any rumors about him and Michigan are bunk. All I can say is that the reason I thought it was possible was because guys high up in the Michigan hockey program thought it was likely. Quite high.
Etc.: Composite top 100 2016 IN SG Kyle Guy is coming in for the elite camp, as will fellow 2016 SG Justin Turner. Eric Davis talks offer.
Even more horrifying old Sparties. Recruiting thread turns into pages-long civil war trash talk festival. Name that school. Hooray 14 team conference scheduling.
I probably missed this in the board topic about it, but is something being described as "cold" now a good thing? I can't keep up with the kids and their lingo these days.
that's a cold ass honky
"ass" and "honky" aren't usually positive either are they? I think I'm more confused. Maybe 3 bad things together make a good thing.
Each one by itself is a negative. Together, they form the the highest compliment one can pay a white person.
I believe it stems from something being "cool". If it's even cooler than that it becomes "cold" Or something with Ice Cube and a Coors Light.
Quite high indeed. Not nearly as high as that gun totting coyote or Mitch but quite high.
Similar line of thinking. I was thinking those guys who were high up must have been REALLY high up. Like high enough where the air is so think you can't get enough oxygen to the brain to sustain reasonable thoughts. Anyone who has followed MB's career knows he is an ambitious guy and taking a step backwards was just never going to happen.
I will never understand Brian's obsession with the players getting paid. Perhaps he's really a scholarship athlete.
I will never understand a college sports blogger's decision to closely cover the most important and controversial issue facing college sports in our time. Perhaps he's doing his job.
I don't disagree with your point that it is an ever present topic in the media and as such has to be covered. I think the problem is how he covers it.
I have been following this blog for a long time and over that time it has become plain to me that Brian is very passionate about any and all debates surrounding college sports. When you're that passionate about something it is always hard to try and remain neutral in the way your present things and to be fair, it's his blog and he doesn't have to remain neutral. I just think that is the reason some people dump on him at times.
Again, I don't know that any of that dumping is justified given the circumstances and why people think they can choose sides but Brian shouldn't. He's a fan like the rest of us and as such has opinions like everyone else. Personally I don't find anything wrong with how he goes about things even when I am on the other side of the debate (like I am in this instance).
He's obviously not even trying to remain neutral, which I like, especially considering I'd say there's a side that's quite clearly right. Most of the concern from people against higher player compensation don't have much of an ethical or or pragmatic argument; the concern is mainly rooted in the fear that college football as we know it will be ruined.
I think the problem some have is not that he is simply focusing attention on the issue, but that he seems to have decided that there is only one legitimate side to this debate and that opposing views (even those coming from former NCAA athletes) have no merit. I personally think it's a tough issue and there are valid points to be made on both sides.
If the opposing side has no merit, how is that a problem? That's what always got me in something like philosophy class. Someone doesn't know the deal and then they get all pissed off because people disagree with them.
Saying former NCAA athletes said it is just an appeal to authority, and not only that, but they don't all agree. More importantly, Cone is simply wrong about athletes being fired. Being fired isn't something to worry about if player compensation is involved because it already happens. It's also worthwhile to point out that so far judges in this case seem to find the NCAA's arguments laughable at best.
As far as I can recall, Brian hasn't actually said anything like we need to just start paying players a bunch of money. He's talked about raising the stipend, but even BCS conference commissioners have backed that. He's mainly advocated for players to have a voice in the workings of college football and for them to be compensated for their likeness in video games, jerseys, etc., and I don't know how you can argue with that reasonably.
Brian is absolutely biased/made up his mind and that bums some people out, but go to any site on the web and you'll find that they have a couple such biases. I'd hate this place if Brian and the rest of the writers were constantly equivocating on topics surrounding UM and sports in general. Not everything needs to be #HOTTAKES, but he's got an opinion and other people do as well. It would bug me if everyone was in agreement on the topic, and just because I tend to agree with Brian on this issue doesn't change the fact that he should be able to say what he wants. The fact that people still are surprised by this after x number of posts is the really interesting part.
...you're just stupid. Even if you were actually one of those athletes your thoughts and opinions are void and stupid unless you think they should be living even higher on the hog than they already are.
And, no, finding 4 examples in all of the NCAA of kids getting "fired" doesn't really constitute it already happening all the time.
Was really hoping to make it through at least one front page post without beating the dead, buried, dug-up, creamated horse to death once again but... nope.
I wonder what happens when they do get paid and UM Union comes after Brian for exploiting the names and likenesses of the players for his own personal gain without giving them a cut? Hmm...
There is a large divide between news photos and editorial/endorsement ones. In the event that guys can make money of their likenesses we will work with them to create shirts like our Novak one, so they can live ever "higher on the hog."
The only argument contained in this comment is an appeal to authority.
Then again I don't know what your college experience was like but if you think the players are living like bums you must have been living in a mansion.
But, like another user said, who do you think is going to pay the players? It's not going to be the AD, they are going to make as much as they are going to make either way - they'll just wring the fans even more than they already are and we'll keep doing it just like we always have. So this isn't really about paying the players, this is about a $5 tax per ticket per game going to the players. That'd probably be how the AD would implement it to emphasize how much is going to them and those of us that choose to go can know that we're directly paying their salaries.
...work full time jobs (their sports) to get those benefits.
They are very well compensated for that. Find me a job for a kid without a degree where they can earn 70k+ a year.
What are you even talking about? Are you talking about kids who don't finish at UM but get drafted? Because if you think somebody is going to get an athlete $70k while in school, then I'd like to see some evidence of ANYONE talking about that number.
But again, the $70k isn't money in their pocket, but a valuation of the "benefits" they receive along with the education. Do you say that kids on scholarships (but not sports) are also getting paid whatever they are receiving? If so, then I think I've found an answer to "show me a job where kids without a degree get paid X" number of dollars.
The point remains that people are looking at these kids as freeloaders who should be happy with what they get for "playing a game", and I'm arguing they are an integral part of a money-making endeavor at the university and simply want some negotiating power.
For these guys it's way higher than that because they actually get world class facilities to use at their leisure.
to collude between each other to set artificially low levels of compensation for their employees.
sometimes they get away with it by avoiding detection but that does not mean they were allowed to do it.
naive
what?
EDIT: Yeah. See above.
So, really, we're talking about benefits packages easily in excess of 70k for the out of state guys and even the instate guys with the other benefits are probably around 60k or more.
It is not our job to decide if the player is getting compensated fairly. That should be an agreement between the player and the school. If the NCAA wants to set a minimum compensation, all the better; many players are getting a great deal in the status quo. But setting maximum compensation for the players without setting maximum compensation for athletic departments is collusion.
It's also irrelevant as to where the athletic departments get the money for the players. If they increase ticket prices, the fans have the right to decide to pay for them or not. If they do, great; if they don't, the money has to come internally.
Man, this type of reasoning drives me crazy.
Maybe it's changed, but when I was at UM the football players mostly lived in West Quad, and while they had slightly bigger rooms, they weren't in palaces. And frankly, accomodations were made for a number of people, not just athletes. The food they get is better than the ones students receive, but part of that is that it NEEDS to be better than what the average student eats. I worked in food services for a year while in South Quad and helped feed these guys, and people don't realize how many good calories they need to take in to maintain their size and strength throughout the season. Eating and diet is part of their job, and it's not like they are eating lobster and caviar every day; they just get slightly better versions of the food students get.
Free tutoring is usually available to most students; go to the Math Lab if you are struggling with Calc II, or the writing lab if you are having trouble with your report. The reason athletes tend to get the "free" tutoring is because they can't make usual office hours/tutoring sessions because they have other responsibilities such as practice, film sessions, etc. Sure, they get a bit more help, but rarely do they have hours upon hours of help.
The marketing is apparently all in the eye of the beholder; if you join any number of UM-sponsored clubs or organizations you have access to alumni and networks that you can use to promote yourself. Sure, football is on national TV, but that's because ABC has yet to monetize Solar Car racing, not because football players are cheating some system.
Finally, all the healthcare is typically related to injuries sustained while playing football. It's part of the deal; you can go to the UM clinic and get taken a look at, and if you got hurt as part of an official UM-sanctioned event and didn't sign a waiver, I'm guessing UM would provide for your care.
My point is that there is some real latent animosity on this board against athletes. We love to watch them play and win, but there is a subset here that looks at them as "dumb jocks" who get everything they want and are just perpetuating the bullying mindset that was common with a couple of guys from HS. Athletes are not saints and they should not be treated as gods, but all of these anger and animosity toward kids asking for some pretty reasonable protections and a sliver of the millions they are generating while performing for UM seems misguided or, at the very least, tinged with distaste not directly related to the arguments at hand.
That's the line between the NFL and the NCAA. When you start paying players you cross that line (I'm not talking about a slightly larger stipend but, seriously, the stipend they have right now is enough barring they aren't stupid with the $) and that's what people are against. I watch the NFL but, as I said months ago, the NFL doesn't inspire the loyalty and fandom that college does. Why is that? It's because the people in college are playing for the name on the front of the jersey, not the back. It's because we go to classes with them and they are "just like us" but with a skill to play a sport that we can't. In a word - they are just "people" rather than what they become once they join a professional sport (multi-millionaires with agents that live in mansions and you'll never actually see just going to eat at lunch.)
So, no, I don't think this has anything to do with "dumb jock" thought process and I'm not really sure how/why you came to that conclusion.
I had engineering classes with these guys as well, and yes they were students as much as anyone else. At the same time, though, part of the deal they negotiated with the school when they signed up was that they would play football and be students, and that included all of the prerequisite duties both of these identities entail. When people say they want athletes to get "paid", nobody is thinking this will become a profession for the athletes while in college. A couple of grand extra in a stipend + a small cut of the profits from their likeness in the billion-dollar market surrounding college sports doesn't seem particularly egregious.
And while you are perfectly entitled to feel that athletes should play for the "name on the front of the jersey, not the back", that is simply your opinion on the matter. You are free to ascribe whatever beliefs you want to your fandom, but you (and nobody, for that matter) are not allowed to impose those views on the kids in those roles. And let's not kid ourselves; schools and teams certainly are not against kicking a kid out of the program (oh sorry, I mean, "enable a transfer" or suggest a "change of scenery") if he isn't playing well enough for the name on the front of the jersey.
We aren't going to agree on this, and that's fine. You are absolutely allowed to have a differing opinion. My point remains that the people who are railing against paying athletes tend to rely on subjective and platonic ideals and rationalizations of college sports and "slippery slope" arguments that, to me, don't carry much weight. They all seem to fall back on the notion that kids should be happy with the status quo because it would be good enough for the speaker, not recognizing that perhaps the people actually involved in the sport might hold differing opinions on how they perceive their compensation and value to the university.
shouldn't then tickets be priced just to cover the electric bill and travel costs?
I can't go along with your thought that joining any club or activity and thus marketing yourself to that group of alums is similar to playing M football. I only played baseball and not at a power program and still to this day headhunters and potential employers light up like crazy about it. It has been the dominant topic in any interview I have ever had and it is always the first thing management says when they introduce me to people. My friends who did the solar car have not benefitted anywhere near that much from it and I would argue it's way more relevant to their career than sitting the bench in baseball has been for me.
sit. They deserve whatever wages they would get from independent actors bidding competitively for their services.
If Dave Brandon could charge non-student fans an additional $5/ticket he'd be doing so right now. What's likely to happen is that at least one non-traditional program is going to radically cut administrative costs and use that money to attract elite recruits. Michigan will either follow suit or it will fall even further behind. I suspect it will follow suit.
Liberal guilt.
Just kidding. It's hard not to bring it up when profits are at an all time high and coaches at school like VCU are getting 7 figure salaries.
As a season ticket holder for nearly 40 years, ticket prices remained pretty constant for the first 30. I can remember $20 for the longest time. Then they started to climb, then we got seat licenses, then we get $45 for golf course parking up from $10 and we are at $75 to see Miami Ohio. As a fan, we are paying more and getting less somehow, with worse non conf opponents, worse start times, longer more drawn out games, less of the things we grew up loving. During that time the athletic department has gone from like a dude, his secretary and Jon falk to being an army of suits that troll MSU games with skywriting and mess up student ticket rates and won't let you take in seat cushions until they do and schedule games in Dallas that make no more money than a home game, but I guess I can spend this "buzz" sormwhere right? and by the way the bands not coming oh yeah now they are and I guess our dick isn't that big since we couldn't get MSU and OSU at home in opposite years and check out our new tennis facilities and there are no ads in the big house UNLESS YOU WANT TO PAY US TO GET MARRIED HERE! oh and by the way, temptation is just a song that you say "YOU SUCK" at the end of because you can have one without the other unless you stick around an hour after the game. In addition, literally everyone up the food chain is getting filthy f'n rich off college football. Conference championship game sponsors, bowl game sponsors, bowl game hosts, network tv, espn, coaches, university presidents, equipment companies, conference dudes, don't even get me started on the NCAA and whatever they do with all those people and money, construction companies to build facilities, and on and on and on. And the people who are working for this are 120 kids. some of them get educated. some of them want to be non-kinesiologists and are put into specific athlete friendly programs, some of them want to have jobs but have to schedule around the hours and hours of official and even more unofficially required events, some of them will get hurt and never feel right again, some of them will just be guys that had the greatest time of their lives. Yes, they get compensated with an education and experience but there is no way that the increasing costs of tuition are on par with the overall cash grab in college sports today. So, if you accept that compensation is already part of the equation we are left talking about the degree of compensation. Personally, I would rather my extra $5 a ticket per year go to players than coaches or suits even if they use it to buy alcohol tattoos or drugs - gasp!
Do you honestly think that if the current model switches to paying the players your ticket prices aren't going to go up to compensate? You think they are going to cut the salary of the A.D. employees (or even the number of them), coaches salaries etc. to come up with the money to pay the players?
Then, when the players aren't content with their salaries and want a raise, where do you think that money is going to come from? Are they going to find it within the existing budget and stop doing things like stadium rennovations and building new facilities?
With all the moaning I hear about ticket prices I am amzed how many of the same people think paying the players is a good idea. Do you not think that is going to impact those same prices you're already so angry about? Athletic departments are still going to want to make money, and when player salaries starts eating into that they are going to make up for it one way or another and I'd bet it's going to come at the expense of the fans.
is over, they are going up consistently no matter what. my concern is where that money goes and what it gets me.
coaches salaries go up 12% a year
athletic departments earn 10% more a year (michigan earned 30% more in 2012)
athletic directors earn more (bill martin made $380,000 in 2010, dave brandon makes $900,000 plus a possible $200,000 bonus)
just to be fair, tuition has gone up about 3-4% a year.
so, even if you thought all of these people were equal in college football existing, the rates of increase for everyone other than players outpaces the players so drastically that i don't really care about the increase, as long as it feels morally correct. even if its not money, maybe some sort of health insurance, maybe a trust fund upon graduation, whatever, just more than current.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/11/19/college-football-…
trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-rates-growth-tuition-and-fees-over-time
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/B…
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/new-ad-brandon-offered-47-percent-…
If Michigan does not run a leaner athletic department with less bloat, a competitor will and will have more money to spend on players. If the AD were run as a charity for fans, there would not be PSDs, one-direction "dynamic" pricing, etc.
The people who don't want players to be paid market wages should be pointing their fingers of blame at athletic directors, especially the current set. Those guys heightened the contradictions..
I actually think that Michigan would have to reduce costs rather than increase ticket prices.
Michigan football has already maxed out its ticket price. The Athletic Deparment is sending an increasing number of e-mails begging people to buy tickets. (I have even heard that University employees are being offered tickets at a discount and without any donation.) Michigan still has unsold tickets. This leads me to the conclusion that the tickets are already priced at more than the market will support, There may be some room left to increase basketball tickets, but probably not enough to offset player compensation in football and basketball.
I agree that they will want to increase the price, but I don't think that the market will allow it. Thus, they will have to cut costs.
I was preparing to down vote at the beginning of that, but by the end I was enthusiastically upvoting. I do hope you took a breath or two while writing that.
Given the effects of inflation, that sounds like a very poor business practice which inevitably was going to lead to a rapid increase in prices at some point. I do know that when those prices started going up they were still much lower than what OSU and PSU were charging.
I can say this: As a lower division athlete who had a full academic scholarship that covered tuition, cafe privileges and a room, I lived on probably $200 to $300 a month which came from money saved during high school and working in the summer (and returning cans. Lots of cans).
I can't imagine a high profile athlete at a big time school would have any trouble getting a summer job or an off-season job that would enable them to put together a few thousand dollars for a semester. And lets not pretend that there aren't other benefits being handed out, even at beloved Michigan.
Paying players should follow the Olympic model: If someone wants to pay you to star in an ad, it should be legal for them to do so or if their name is going to be on the back of a replica, the players should get a cut. So if Denard can move jerseys and make a million dollars in college, it should be legal. If Michael Schofield can do a local ad for a used car lot and make a couple grand, he should be allowed to do so.
Personally, rather than paying players, I think the fight should be over 5 year scholarship promises, so the Bama's of the world can't recruit an extra 30 players every 4-5 years and perhaps a monthly allowance ($300? $500?) for kids who come from a certain level of povery where any help from home is simply not going to happen.
that there are rules that make getting summer jobs for scholarship athletes a pain in the @$$ and place all sorts of restrictions on them. .They might even restrict how much $$$ they can make. They certainly cannot use their status as an athlete to secure a job. That is a direct violation.
But other than not using their athlete status or getting paid boat loads more than average joe for the same job those restrictions are gone. They don't even put a cap on how much you can make over the summer anymore.
Unless the sport itself is a limiting factor to being employed. I played baseball in college and we were expected to play summer ball. That means 2.5 months of traveling to away games by bus and/or being away from "home". In terms of football, aren't most of the players taking classes and practicing still? I'd imagine the summer months would be just as busy, if not more than, during the normal school year.
I'm not in favor of paying players as I believe they already get enough. Most of the guys I knew in revenue sports in college would get a check from the athletic department every month for about $1200-$1300. Take away rent and utilities, and most months, they have $800+ for spending money.
Comments