Sounds good!Originally Posted by REDREAD
Sounds good!
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
I think this is very much a "Be careful what you wish for..." type of situation for college athletics and the "PAY THE PLAYERS!" enthusiasts online.
The engine that drive's college football's economy isn't exactly the wokest crowd.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
I thought we lived in America. Last I checked this is a capitalistic economy. A person should make as much as they can earn. If the universities get their hands on it, it defeats the purpose somewhat. They will want a cut of it too since it's their university, their facilities their uniforms and their stadium. Is it fair to those who don't get endorsements? No. But is it fair Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire and we're not?
You tell him, "Zeke, if you don't go to class you could lose your eligibility." Besides, I understand a lot of athletes just take online classes so what could be easier than to log on to your classes from your dorm room/house?[/quote]
Women should be able to make money off endorsements as well as men. Most won't be able to but you don't think someone in Storrs, CT wouldn't want a UCONN woman's basketball player to endorse their product? Those who can make money off this should, those who can't, tough luck.But who's part of the pool? Then you get into Title IX issues
You don't think there's already jealousy in some of those programs? You think there weren't some Duke players last season jealous of Zion? They still went out and played.
One issue I could see are taxes. Since all this is above board and income, the athletes are going to have to declare it as income. Most students I know aren't filing tax returns because they are still dependents of their parents. That could change with this.
My comment had to do with pooling the money. If the money is pooled women will want to be a part of that. It'll be legally difficult for Ezekiel Elliott's money to be shared with the 90 other football players but not the girl's softball team.
Everyone that contributes is part of the pool. So if a field hockey player or rower or golfer can get an endorsement deal that goes into the pot and the whole team will be paid something.
Yes this means that the Zeke Elliot and Justin Fields and Trevor Lawrence’s or the world won’t make as much money as they could. They’d still make more than they do now (legally), they’ll be able to brand themselves better starting in college and those that are able will still be able to make millions as professional athletes.
The system has to work something like that. If it’s just pay market rates to each individual, than there’s no reason to pretend and it just won’t work.
I agree that if this is how it'd have to work but I don't see it working that way. It'd be rife with corruption and figuring out if all the money was really shared.
What do you mean by the whole team? If you're the 3rd string special teamer and contribute nothing, do you get an equal share of the pool? Does the golf player (such as Tiger Woods @ Stanford) have to share his with the women's golf team?
It would be sad for college athletics to end. And do you really think it's a scam? A tiny fraction of college athletes make their living as professional athletes.
How about just making Division I college sports semi-pro? I've always had a beef that, for all the claims that college football (and many college basketball programs) are moneymakers that fund the entire university sports programs, last I checked, there were really only 6 or so college programs that were self-sufficient, drawing no money from the general fund of their respective universities. Why is that? Well, when you have, say the University of Tennessee making money hand over fist, but only half of what the University of Alabama makes, then the UT football team draws money out of the university's general fund to keep up with Alabama. I think that's a bunch of bull. Also, football coaches for colleges should be paid solely from the revenues brought in by the team. It's ridiculous that the highest paid state employees in most states are the head coaches of the public university football teams.
I think that the Division I major university programs should be considered semi-pro and be required to actually pay the universities they play for a licensing fee for the use of the school's colors and trademarks, as well as a lease on the university facilities. The rents and licensing fees paid by these teams could then still be used to fund other sports programs at the schools, or be put back into the general fund to subsidize tuition for regular students. Boosters could still donate moneys to be applied towards upkeep and capital improvements for the facilities. With regard to players, these college programs could then give their recruits an option of being paid as a professional player, or the team could fund a scholarship for the player so that the player could attend the university with which the team has a contract. The pro players could still choose to attend university classes, but would be required to pay tuition same as any regular student at the university.
Another idea that I had is that, if you want to maintain the so-called "amateur" status of college athletes, but still allow them to receive a benefit from all the money the universities make off of using their likenesses, then require 50% of the proceeds of all media rights and sponsorship deals to go into a fund to provide health insurance and pensions to student athletes.
Wear gaudy colors, or avoid display. Lay a million eggs or give birth to one. The fittest shall survive, yet the unfit may live. Be like your ancestors or be different. We must repeat!
Redsfaithful (10-04-2019)
I mean I don’t know why it would be so hard to figure out the in and out of the payments. It’s just an accounting department.
Yes I mean the whole team. If one person on any team gets an endorsement deal that pays into the pot, everyone on that team gets paid. I think it should still be done somewhat proportional, so football and basketball are still going to make more money than golf or whatever, but everyone could potentially be included.
While, I agree with this, its much more complex than you think. Lets be clear about one thing, minor league football doesn't work and most probably won't work. Leagues like the AAF, XFL, now the reboot of the XFL, all tend to fail, and fail spectacularly within a few short weeks. But even in the other major sports, the minor league systems just aren't that good. The G League is a step up from major college basketball, but few people actually watch those games. People bicker all the time about how minor league baseball players aren't paid all that well, and soccer and hockey have a system, but with the exception of a very few, they are afterthoughts. So if you are an aspiring football player, major college football is really the only path to go.
But you get to capitalism, and I agree with it, but it isn't as cut and dry. I was talking with a buddy of mine who is a PhD but at the time was just finishing up his program. He was talking about the difference between academia and a private company. Basically, academia gave you a free slate to do what you want, especially if you got tenure. He said in his field, the thing every stove for was a grand for the NHS. We got to talking about that, and I didn't realize that every grant a university professor gets, he gets a portion and the school gets a portion. If the NHS gives you a 1M grant, you don't get that 1M, you get a portion of it, and the university takes the rest.
I think a pool is the most equitable way of doing things. I think it should be a pool across each individual sport. I also would put caps on things. For example, an individual can only make so much a year and a company can only contribute so much. Yes Justin Fields is tremendously valuable to the university, but I am a firm believer that the ones who came before you contribute to your value. Fields has value because he is QB1 at OSU, he wasn't so valuable at Georgia as QB2.
Chip R (10-04-2019)
- In the end whatever gets through, I assume payments will actually go through the university or a 3rd party, and not directly to the student athlete. Most if not all NCAA coaches endorsement money is paid directly to the university, and the university distributes funds to the coach.
- sadly I do not think there will much of a market if any for female athletes. One thing that was clear in UConn's recent disclosures is that nobody has figured out how to monetize women's collegiate athletics. UConn Women's Basketball is considered the most high profile program in the country and still operates at a massive annual loss.
- I would expect if adopted, within 24 months Title IV and racial discrimination suits will flood the courts.
I wouldn't say it is a scam. But the top players and the faces of top teams get shafted out of money they should probably get some of.
I'd be curious to know the breakdown of how these athletes make their money after college and how many directly benefit from their academic degrees to do so. Everyone likes to act like the student in student athlete really comes first. It is more like "athletes-some of which are students-the rest of which attend mostly made up majors because the NCAA has academic requirements and they retain their eligibility because they help us win and make $$$".
"Today was the byproduct of us thinking we can come back from anything." - Joey Votto after blowing a 10-1 lead and holding on for the 12-11 win on 8/25/2010.
I'd say the money goes into a trust and the players get access to it after they retain eligibility and graduate within X number of years of admission, if they transfer in good standing they get a portion of it upon graduation from another school. And perhaps via school and their scholarships they have learned the necessary skills to handle a large some of money responsibly after graduating.
If Zeke doesn't want to go to class, Zeke doesn't get his money.
"Today was the byproduct of us thinking we can come back from anything." - Joey Votto after blowing a 10-1 lead and holding on for the 12-11 win on 8/25/2010.
This statement isn't geared to anyone here in particular because I don't know your political beliefs, but in general it's weird that I've seen so many people who believe in the "free market" who are arguing against it when it comes to college sports.
Chip R (10-05-2019)
It's not that unusual for free market folks not to be that worried about labor.
But also no one has advocated for preventing anyone from starting an alternative to NCAA athletics. That would be a market alternative. There's just not a market (or not much of one) for these athletes outside the structure of university-sponsored athletics.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote