Paying Players

Submitted by jb5O4 on August 9th, 2011 at 7:38 PM

I'm sure I'll stir a little controversy here....

But wouldn't the legalization of boosters paying players help Michigan...and other Big ten schools like Penn State?

We've got alot of alumni, many of whom have alot of money. No way the SEC could compete with the pocket  books of Big Ten alum.

Comments

ILwolverine

August 9th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

Every major school will have rich boosters that would pay players. And it would be a controlled situation where all players receive the same amount. Not boosters trying to out bid each other.

Fhshockey112002

August 9th, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^

I understand the concept of "complete cost of living" scholarships but this arguement is not what you are doing here.  This would be bad for all of college football.

WolvinLA2

August 9th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^

In a complete free for all, I agree that the schools with the largest and wealthiest alumni bases would probably have an advantage.  But don't underestimate what dumb people are willing to do with their money. 

Either way, this would completely ruin college football.

Maize_in_Spartyland

August 9th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^

Agreed.  The schools with the most money would benefit.  Smaller conferences, like the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC would suffer.  Many of the schools use their football program to pay for their athletic department.  Doing something like this would force many athletic programs into the red, cause football to disband, or dropping down to a lower division.

Something to think about, for you Eastern Michigan supporters, this would probably be the final nail in the coffin.

Gobluegr

August 9th, 2011 at 7:54 PM ^

I believe the best way to go the paying the players route is to do it through agents. Have The "good" agents be NCAA certified to interact with players and sign deals with them. The players would not have to do anything for the agents in college, but they would be locked in to having that person as their agent in the NFL. This would help eliminate shady agents giving players money, cars, girls, etc. and make it so the top players (the ones normally taking extra benifits) would be payed.

Edit:I realized I wasn't clear in my stance of paying players, I don't think it should be done. Going to college for free, getting free healthcare, free housing, and so on is plenty already. My post is just to say what I believe should be done if the NCAA did choose to let players get payed.

goblue20111

August 9th, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^

Let the free market decide.  If players have marketability, let them sign with Nike, Addidas, etc.  If they're really "student-athletes" let's get them off ESPN all day.  Sure they're getting a scholarship but who cares when you're trying to make it pro? With the amount of money in big time athletics, you'll continue to have these scandals.  Not to get political but we've seen prohibition of certain activities throughout history as largely a failure. There's not other avenue to the NFL/NBA (euro leagues aside) and it's not by accident.  Let's create a regulated system.  Sure not every kid is going to get a big contract but I'm pretty sure most starters could get local spots, showing up to birthdays, etc.  Who does it really hurt? There's obviously a demand for it.  It doesn't cost the universities anything. 

goblueva

August 9th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^

Its not as simple as it sounds to pay players. With Title IX it makes it virtually impossible. If you pay the football player, you have to pay the field hockey player, the member of the crew team, etc. You have to pay them equal as well or the university could lose risk losing federal funding. And how do you decide who gets what? Does the 5 star recruit get more than the 2 star? And what if the 5 star is a bust? Do you decrease his pay? Does the recruit get paid more for going to UM over WMU or CMU? As someone who had to work to pay for school and borrow I feel a scholarship is more than worth it.

Charlie Chunk

August 9th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^

Pay football players? What about baseball, hockey, soccer and basketball players as well? Women’s sports should be included, right?

If you make them paid athletes, why recruit high school players. Surely there's some pro athlete's that can make your team better. Hell, make all of them pro team cast-off's. Surely they can beat some college boys.

Are you kidding? Why do you want to fuck up what's worked for over a hundred years?

MGoSoftball

August 9th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^

The Federal Courts will never allow this.  Title IX says that everyone must be treated equally.  We could never afford to pay the women's swim team.  Can we debate about something worthwhile?

BlueDragon

August 9th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^

Our 85x85 pixellated identity badges are a mark of respect and dignity in our MGoSociety.  As a fairly regular contributor to the board with >2500 points, it would help us pick out your posts amongst the clutter.  I too was avatar-less for a time, until I realized that it was time to manifest myself with MS Paint amongst the MGoCommunity.

We'd love to meet up with you at a game this fall, but that does not change the fact that you lack a quality avatar to match ours.

Tater

August 10th, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^

To avoid the courts, Title IX, etc, all they have to do is allow players to get money from wherever they want on a free market basis.  This is the same as anyone else who has earned a scholarship that doesn't relate to sports is allowed to do.  

Until then, though, everybody has to follow the rules, especially Ohio.

Waters Demos

August 9th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^

I don't like pre-judgment. 

But based on this post, you appear to me to be a bit unawares. 

I could be wrong because I'm going on a small sample of your work. 

jb5O4

August 10th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

I'm not talking about the schools paying players, I'm talking about fans paying players.

 

So a few points:

- College football is already unfair. Do you really think Central Michigan has a fair chance to play for a BCS Championship as Michigan does?

- The fact that players have to sacrifice so much for their college time and likely never go pro, so why not let them make money in college? You can talk all the free education you want, fact is these kids are brought to these schools to win football games.

- It happens anyway, make it legal and force the players to report it as income and pay taxes.

 

If college sports is amatuer then the NCAA should not have a $10 billion contract with CBS.

LSAClassOf2000

August 10th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^

As a fan, why would I want to pay someone who already receives the equivalent of about $100,000 in various benefits (including the education) simply because they play a varsity sport? 

At least ostensibly, they (the players) are there for the education  - you can only hope that they take the opportunity seriously. I think money would detract  from that.