A chance players could get some NCAA TV money?

[thatcoolguy_22]

http://tracking.si.com/2013/01/30/nc.../?sct=uk_t2_a6

“Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability in the billions of dollars instead of tens or hundreds of millions,” said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “It’s a more accurate context for what the players deserve.”

It's a start. I have said they deserve some financial compensation for years.

[New York Red]

A full ride to the college of their choice is plenty payment enough. If the NCAA starts paying athletes, we're going to quickly see cheating on a level we never imagined before.

[improbus]

Do you actually believe that Johnny Manziel is only worth the value of a scholarship to Texas A&M? Should he get the same compensation as a soccer player at A&M? The system is so beyond corrupt already that I would welcome with open arms the influx of money in the hands of the kids.

[New York Red]

Originally Posted by improbus

Do you actually believe that Johnny Manziel is only worth the value of a scholarship to Texas A&M? Should he get the same compensation as a soccer player at A&M? The system is so beyond corrupt already that I would welcome with open arms the influx of money in the hands of the kids.

I read where Manziel reportedly made $3 million for the A&M athletics department in 2012 alone so I understand, and somewhat agree with, your point. Wouldn't it create some animosity among teammates if certain glamour players are getting paid X amount of money, while kids doing the dirty work in the trenches are getting Y amount? I'm not talking about the difference between a star QB and a backup lineman. I'm talking similarly talented players at different positions in different sports. What is the cut-off point and how is a struggling athletics department going to pay a comparable amount to a high-dollar athletics department like at Texas or Alabama?

Then consider the recruiting aspect of it. Are you telling me this isn't going to open up an entirely new avenue in which recruits can get payments in exchange for their commitment to whatever school coughs up the most coin? IMO this rule would create an even wider gap between the haves and the have nots, particularly in the big money world of college football. I'm not naive enough to think it isn't already dirty, but to me it seems like this idea creates as many questions as answers.

[improbus]

Originally Posted by New York Red

I read where Manziel reportedly made $3 million for the A&M athletics department in 2012 alone so I understand, and somewhat agree with, your point. Wouldn't it create some animosity among teammates if certain glamour players are getting paid X amount of money, while kids doing the dirty work in the trenches are getting Y amount? I'm not talking about the difference between a star QB and a backup lineman. I'm talking similarly talented players at different positions in different sports. What is the cut-off point and how is a struggling athletics department going to pay a comparable amount to a high-dollar athletics department like at Texas or Alabama?

Then consider the recruiting aspect of it. Are you telling me this isn't going to open up an entirely new avenue in which recruits can get payments in exchange for their commitment to whatever school coughs up the most coin? IMO this rule would create an even wider gap between the haves and the have nots, particularly in the big money world of college football. I'm not naive enough to think it isn't already dirty, but to me it seems like this idea creates as many questions as answers.

My issue with college athletics is that is wants its money and it still wants to maintain the myth of amateurism. They need to either be about education or a minor league. They can't be both. You pointed out how can colleges deal with "paying" the stars and the rest of the players. I would argue that the stars shouldn't be going through the NCAA system at all. The NFL and NBA should have appropriate minor leagues or academy systems to train the best athletes in their sports. Why should the minor leagues be attached to our university system? It makes no sense.

Baseball and Hockey do it perfectly. You can either go to the minors or go to college. So, if you want the education, you can get it. If you want to go straight into the professional ranks, you can. The College Football/NFL relationship is a cartel. So is the College Hoops/NBA relationship.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by improbus

Do you actually believe that Johnny Manziel is only worth the value of a scholarship to Texas A&M? Should he get the same compensation as a soccer player at A&M? The system is so beyond corrupt already that I would welcome with open arms the influx of money in the hands of the kids.

It's not about worth. If it was we wouldn't have women's sports. The concept of amateur athletics is that nobody gets paid, from the lacrosse player to the football QB. They all get scholarships, room and board etc but the payoffs don't come until after you leave. Sure, the stars get screwed a little but many, many student athletes benefit, so I think the system is the best for all concerned

[improbus]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

It's not about worth. If it was we wouldn't have women's sports. The concept of amateur athletics is that nobody gets paid, from the lacrosse player to the football QB. They all get scholarships, room and board etc but the payoffs don't come until after you leave. Sure, the stars get screwed a little but many, many student athletes benefit, so I think the system is the best for all concerned

It's funny how we love capitalism...except here. Ask Marcus Lattimore about his college experience.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by improbus

It's funny how we love capitalism...except here. Ask Marcus Lattimore about his college experience.

Capitalism might be a stretch here. Is anyone being forced to play ball in college? "You must go to college or you cannot become a pro"?

I know that the NFL and NBA have rules about time out of HS (those leagues, not the colleges). However, there is not a rule that states you cannot be a pro if you do not attend college. You might have to wait, but you do not have to attend (maybe "be at" is a better way to say it for many of them lol) college.

We all know Maurice Clarett tried to change the NFL rule about the time thing in court and lost.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by improbus

It's funny how we love capitalism...except here. Ask Marcus Lattimore about his college experience.

I love democracy too but that doesn't mean it reigns in my household. Just ask my kids...

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

It's not about worth. If it was we wouldn't have women's sports. The concept of amateur athletics is that nobody gets paid, from the lacrosse player to the football QB. They all get scholarships, room and board etc but the payoffs don't come until after you leave. Sure, the stars get screwed a little but many, many student athletes benefit, so I think the system is the best for all concerned

Except only basketball and football actually have enough scholarships to actually go around for 90% of the entire team. Baseball is probably the third biggest college sport out there. The entire team shares 10-12 scholarships and some guys get a full one themselves.

Players should get paid. And they should be paid well. If your sport doesn't support itself between ticket sales/media money (tv/radio/internet/whatever else), then it shouldn't exist. Do you think that if the English department at a school was losing money hand over fist, like a lot of these sports do, that it wouldn't be eliminated? Of course it would. But with sports, it can't work that way because Amy Sue needs to be able to bowl for her college because Tommy is allowed to get a scholarship for football. Title IX is stupid. It has always been stupid and it always will be stupid. College athletics are also stupid. The universities are banking, big time, off of two sports made up of about 85 students per year (basketball/football). Pay those guys. Pay them what they are worth. Cut the sports that can't support themselves.

[Reds Freak]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except only basketball and football actually have enough scholarships to actually go around for 90% of the entire team. Baseball is probably the third biggest college sport out there. The entire team shares 10-12 scholarships and some guys get a full one themselves.

Players should get paid. And they should be paid well. If your sport doesn't support itself between ticket sales/media money (tv/radio/internet/whatever else), then it shouldn't exist. Do you think that if the English department at a school was losing money hand over fist, like a lot of these sports do, that it wouldn't be eliminated? Of course it would. But with sports, it can't work that way because Amy Sue needs to be able to bowl for her college because Tommy is allowed to get a scholarship for football. Title IX is stupid. It has always been stupid and it always will be stupid. College athletics are also stupid. The universities are banking, big time, off of two sports made up of about 85 students per year (basketball/football). Pay those guys. Pay them what they are worth. Cut the sports that can't support themselves.

To be clear, you are advocating for college athletics to consist of big-time football and men's basketball with the baseball, soccer, lacrosse, Division III athletics, etc. type sports being relegated to intramural or club status. What about band? theater? music?

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on Title IX being stupid. The law states that educational institutions receiving public funds cannot discriminate based on gender. It does not say that schools must have the same number of sports for both men and women nor does it say that schools should cut men's sports to add women's sports

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except only basketball and football actually have enough scholarships to actually go around for 90% of the entire team. Baseball is probably the third biggest college sport out there. The entire team shares 10-12 scholarships and some guys get a full one themselves.

Players should get paid. And they should be paid well. If your sport doesn't support itself between ticket sales/media money (tv/radio/internet/whatever else), then it shouldn't exist. Do you think that if the English department at a school was losing money hand over fist, like a lot of these sports do, that it wouldn't be eliminated? Of course it would. But with sports, it can't work that way because Amy Sue needs to be able to bowl for her college because Tommy is allowed to get a scholarship for football. Title IX is stupid. It has always been stupid and it always will be stupid. College athletics are also stupid. The universities are banking, big time, off of two sports made up of about 85 students per year (basketball/football). Pay those guys. Pay them what they are worth. Cut the sports that can't support themselves.

Well if what you're saying is true then the money sports athletes are already benefitting more than the other sports. However with Title IX I believe some girls sports are fully funded for scholarships like basketball. A few women's BB teams make money like Tenn and Conn but as a whole women's BB is not a money maker