With all the news of players and schools cheating and breaking NCAA rules it got me

[starkvegasdawg]

to thinking what would it take to stop, or at least severely limit, the cheating and rule breaking from occuring. Obviously, putting teams on probation 5 years after the fact has no effect and punishes players that were in no way involved in what was going on. For that matter, punishing an entire team while the guilty players are there is not really fair to the ones that abide by the rules. So I started wondering what could be done to punish the guilty but not hammer the innocent too.

My first thing is that there is zero penalty for the ones paying the players or offering extra benefits other than being officially disassociated from the school. And if you think that would stop a high end booster from buying players then I need to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale. Once an infraction has been found and they can tie it back to a certain person(s) then there needs to be some kind of heavy fine for that person. I would start a first offense at 2X the benefit with a second offense 5X and a 3rd 10X. If any coaches or staff members are found to have been involved they are immediately fired from their job and a 1 year ban from coaching. Second offense 5 year ban. Third offense 10 year ban. Now to the players. Most of them don't care whether they get caught after they have left the school or while they are there if they are close to being able to leave for the NFL draft. My idea there is that if you are caught while still at school you are ineligible for the draft for an additional 5 years from your scheduled graduation date. If you have already left school and in the NFL then you are fined 5X your benefit and hit with a 1 year suspension. I know the response to that is that doing that is not fair to the NFL team and that is true but it would force them to look at who they draft and maybe do some homework and shy away from someone with a questionable past and/or write language into the contracts that they will face additional punishment from their NFL team if caught...which may further deter cheating.

These steps may not eliminate cheating but I think it would greatly curtail it. It would also serve to punish the guilty while sparing the innocent. While we all like to see our arch rival get hammered, it is still wrong to want to see a group of 19 year olds get punished for something they were in no way involved in...much in the same way you hate to see a player get a season ending injury regardless of who he plays for.

I don't think this paying players solution will stop anything. The extra benefits will still go on and it will just be on top of the allowed benefit from the school.

My two cents, anyway. Some reading this may think I overcharged.

[smootness]

to thinking what would it take to stop, or at least severely limit, the cheating and rule breaking from occuring. Obviously, putting teams on probation 5 years after the fact has no effect and punishes players that were in no way involved in what was going on. For that matter, punishing an entire team while the guilty players are there is not really fair to the ones that abide by the rules. So I started wondering what could be done to punish the guilty but not hammer the innocent too.

My first thing is that there is zero penalty for the ones paying the players or offering extra benefits other than being officially disassociated from the school. And if you think that would stop a high end booster from buying players then I need to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale. Once an infraction has been found and they can tie it back to a certain person(s) then there needs to be some kind of heavy fine for that person. I would start a first offense at 2X the benefit with a second offense 5X and a 3rd 10X. If any coaches or staff members are found to have been involved they are immediately fired from their job and a 1 year ban from coaching. Second offense 5 year ban. Third offense 10 year ban. Now to the players. Most of them don't care whether they get caught after they have left the school or while they are there if they are close to being able to leave for the NFL draft. My idea there is that if you are caught while still at school you are ineligible for the draft for an additional 5 years from your scheduled graduation date. If you have already left school and in the NFL then you are fined 5X your benefit and hit with a 1 year suspension. I know the response to that is that doing that is not fair to the NFL team and that is true but it would force them to look at who they draft and maybe do some homework and shy away from someone with a questionable past and/or write language into the contracts that they will face additional punishment from their NFL team if caught...which may further deter cheating.

These steps may not eliminate cheating but I think it would greatly curtail it. It would also serve to punish the guilty while sparing the innocent. While we all like to see our arch rival get hammered, it is still wrong to want to see a group of 19 year olds get punished for something they were in no way involved in...much in the same way you hate to see a player get a season ending injury regardless of who he plays for.

I don't think this paying players solution will stop anything. The extra benefits will still go on and it will just be on top of the allowed benefit from the school.

My two cents, anyway. Some reading this may think I overcharged.

This is impossible. The NCAA is not a legal body, they can not enforce any penalties/consequences outside of what they govern, which is collegiate athletics. Since the booster does not play collegiate athletics, the only thing that can be done is what is done...disassociation from the school. How in the world would these fines be enforced, and what court in existence would uphold them?

I mean, we could just kill anyone found guilty, too; that would probably curtail most of it.

And any of the bans on coaching anywhere or playing in the NFL would have to be agreed upon by the NFL, and I can't see them caring because it really doesn't mean much of anything to them.

[slickdawg]

We need the justice department to step in and clean up college football. Subpoena power, ability to put people in jail, that will be the only way. The toothless tiger NCAA is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

[smootness]

We need the justice department to step in and clean up college football. Subpoena power, ability to put people in jail, that will be the only way. The toothless tiger NCAA is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

You would have to create laws that apply first.

Why does everyone think breaking NCAA rules is somehow similar to breaking laws? The law just considers this a free-market system. If the schools don't want these things to happen, then they can create their own rules, which they've done. That's what the NCAA is - just the school presidents' way of enforcing rules they've decided they want. It has nothing to do with the law.

[SignalToNoise]

We need the justice department to step in and clean up college football. Subpoena power, ability to put people in jail, that will be the only way. The toothless tiger NCAA is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

I'm against this idea.

[slickdawg]

You would have to create laws that apply first.

Why does everyone think breaking NCAA rules is somehow similar to breaking laws? The law just considers this a free-market system. If the schools don't want these things to happen, then they can create their own rules, which they've done. That's what the NCAA is - just the school presidents' way of enforcing rules they've decided they want. It has nothing to do with the law.

Wouldn't need it. Perjury, money laundering, tax evasion, all of that is covered by laws now. They just need to be enforced.

[smootness]

Tax evasion? You may have a case.

Money laundering? No. The activity by which you received the money is not illegal.

Perjury? No. The NCAA is not a legal body, they do not place anyone under oath; you can not perjure yourself by lying to them.

[MrKotter]

Its is already considered bribery. The guy behind the Albert Means mess was convicted of bribery or racketeering. Its just enforced like jaywalking

[codeDawg]

The toothless tiger NCAA is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

Absolutely correct. It's just going to take time to play out. College football will be completely different in 5-10 years.

[Irondawg]

I think punishment depends on what is going on. If we're talkinga about one player receiving impermissable benefits then it's hard to single out punishment and not effect the kids that did nothing. However, we all know that is rarely the case. Usually if you find somebody getting big money, most of the highly sought after guys on the team are also getting some good "benefits". And honestly that's probably the case at every Top 50 program in the country so the innocents are mostly 2nd string guys.

The other problem is that most of these benefits are virtually impossible to prove, especially cash transactions.

So here's my solution in a nutshell:

1) Let's go ahead and give the players a stipend like work-study. That way you at least maintain the student-athlete persona as it works similar to any other student that works on campus. of course it would be somewhat higher than work study. Now you remove the "i don't have money for dates and clothes and gas" excuse.

2) Create a system of violations and penalties for violations so that there is no question what the penalty will be for certain infractions.

3) Enforce the hell out of it and have the member schools sign some documentation that to participate in NCAA activities they have to abide by a certain code of conduct. Needs to be clear that in some cases enough smoking guns are good enough to warrant suspension. Get the good lawyers to make this as airtight as possible.

[ShotgunDawg]

It either needs to be a felony to pay a student athlete, or we are going to have to go to high school draft.

Seriously, a draft is the easiest way to solve the whole damn thing. If college football has a 5 round draft between the 5 power conference, then all the top players would be off the draft board, and thus little cheating would exist. Then you could also pay players, once on campus, and allow them to make money off of their name.

Solves two problems at one time.

[Political Hack]

Y'all are buying into the system without asking yourself if the system is justifiable. Universities and the NCAA are making millions off the HARD ASS LABOR of KIDS, and giving them room, board, food, and books in exchange. outside of the educational opportunity, this is 100% the exact same thing as indentured servitude. It's literally criminal.

it needs to be a draft or a free market economy. this indentured servitude system the NCAA has somehow coaxed people into buying in to is what's criminal. They make millions off of Johnny Football, but he's now having his reputation and potentially his draft status knocked because they don't want him making money like they do off of his own performance???

I think we should make a law that anyone who posts a suggestion for a new law should be put in prison.***

Things are going to change soon though... to be continued.

[smootness]

Y'all are buying into the system without asking yourself if the system is justifiable. Universities and the NCAA are making millions off the HARD ASS LABOR of KIDS, and giving them room, board, food, and books in exchange. outside of the educational opportunity, this is 100% the exact same thing as indentured servitude. It's literally criminal.

First of all, indentured servitude was a pretty good deal, in many cases, for the servant, at least when they entered into it willingly, which is exactly what is happening in college football. They knew what they would have to do, and they knew what it would get them in return, and they wanted it.

Second, this idea that the NCAA makes all this money is absurd. The NCAA makes a profit of basically nothing - they use some to put on championships and such and essentially all of the rest is given back to the schools. Yes, the schools make money - and what do they do with it? They put it back into the school, they use it to fund other sports, and they put it directly back into the football program.

I agree with you that the NCAA, or schools, should not allow players' likenesses to be used without compensation to the players. No question. But the deal they get in return is sweet. Please sign my kids up for this 'indentured servitude' right now! Now, some may be too short-sighted to realize the benefit, but if used properly, playing college football can be the gateway to a far more successful life afterward. Literally everything you need is covered, and they are there to make sure that you have every chance possible to do well.

I don't hear about all these volleyball players putting in all this work for nothing. No, they don't make millions for the school; but they work just as hard as football players. Perhaps most of these football players work so hard because they love playing the game, the same reason any other athletes do what they do while in college? These schools are not making anybody do anything. If you think the deal you're getting is a raw one, you're free to walk out the door and do whatever you want. That is nothing at all like servitude or slavery, another term I see people love to throw around when talking about college athletes.

This idea that we need to pay these football players on top of everything else they're getting is absurd. You tell me how it would work. First, only the schools that make a ton of money could afford to do it. Second, your QB is more of a reason you're getting all this money than the backup LG; so I assume you pay him more? And once you're paying players, you can't afford these other sports, so they're gone. And the popularity of college football probably wanes, which leads to less in revenues, which leads to less ability to pay players anyway.

And all of this avoids the fact that Title IX exists...you would have to repeal it first. Otherwise, none of this is the least bit feasible.

[slickdawg]

I don't know if its criminal - they leave college with a diploma, and don't have 10 years (or more) of student loan debt following them around. Maybe 10% of them make pro ball, the rest don't.

[smootness]

I don't know if its criminal - they leave college with a diploma, and don't have 10 years (or more) of student loan debt following them around. Maybe 10% of them make pro ball, the rest don't.

Yes...this thought that the football players are getting a raw deal is absurd. Without college football, most of these guys would be getting nothing out of football. If you want to make a case that some should be allowed to pursue the NFL right out of HS to make more money, that's a different argument, but don't attack the current way they're compensated. And I happen to think that rule is to the benefit of almost everyone as well.

[M.Fillmore]

Money laundering? No. The activity by which you received the money is not illegal.



I dunno. If it is considered a gift, any over $13,000 must be stated on a gift tax return by the giver. If it is considered a payment, then the income received by the player must be considered taxable income.

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Y'all are buying into the system without asking yourself if the system is justifiable. Universities and the NCAA are making millions off the HARD ASS LABOR of KIDS, and giving them room, board, food, and books in exchange. outside of the educational opportunity, this is 100% the exact same thing as indentured servitude. It's literally criminal.

it needs to be a draft or a free market economy. this indentured servitude system the NCAA has somehow coaxed people into buying in to is what's criminal. They make millions off of Johnny Football, but he's now having his reputation and potentially his draft status knocked because they don't want him making money like they do off of his own performance???

I think we should make a law that anyone who posts a suggestion for a new law should be put in prison.***

Things are going to change soon though... to be continued.

It might be hard ass labor, but its only a game. If they don't want to do or can't handle the hard ass labor then they don't have to play.

[Political Hack]

they are not allowed to make money for their skillset and the last time I checked this is still America. To deny the core performers to participate in the MASSIVE money making machine that college football has become is 100% in direct contrast to everything this country was founded to be.

You admit it's indentured servitude... and that may be fine with you, but the limiting of a persons ability to generate earnings for their family is sickening. The fact that other people are earning money off of it is downright criminal. It's a scheme and you've fallen head over heals for it. Congrats on your newfound support of "voluntary communism."

Oh, and the NCAA makes over $800 million a year just on the basketball tournament and they use it to run commercials telling people like you that they're all about the athlete.

[aerodawg]

I don't know if its criminal - they leave college with a diploma, and don't have 10 years (or more) of student loan debt following them around. Maybe 10% of them make pro ball, the rest don't.

I agree with this. However I think the stipend idea should happen for them. But it would have to be very closely watched and controlled to give no schools an advantage. If they just gave them the cost of attendance minus tuition and room and board etc., Bama would magically raise their cost of attendance to get the players more money.

[codeDawg]

The reason the current system is wrong is simple. The colleges around the country, collectively as the NCAA, have a monopoly on the market for opportunities for young men and women to provide their skill set and are exerting their monopolistic power to prevent athletes from being compensated.

The result of this is that a black market has been created where certain highly qualified athletes get paid behind the scenes and contrary to the rules of the game. It's not a fair system for players, schools, or fans.

If you take away the rules around compensation, a natural balance will work itself out. Some kids will get paid a lot of money. A majority of kids will get about what they get today. Not every kid is worth a lot of money, but some are. It will change the landscape of college football, but we are there anyway.

I don't understand what the objection is to paying people for the value they provide. I worked at the University while I was in school. I was compensated in line with the value I provided and the market around me. Nobody tried to classify me as an amateur software developer and pay me scholarships because all the employers in the area didn't get together and fix wages. I had alternatives to working at MSU because we operate in a relatively free market economy, so MSU paid me market price for my skills.

If you are really concerned about preserving the amateurism of college athletics, you are going to have to let that go. You can't have amateurism with the amount of money people are talking about now. That's over. If you want that, go pull for a Division II school.

The only way to stop the cheating is to change the rules.

[smootness]

they are not allowed to make money for their skillset and the last time I checked this is still America. To deny the core performers to participate in the MASSIVE money making machine that college football has become is 100% in direct contrast to everything this country was founded to be.

You admit it's indentured servitude... and that may be fine with you, but the limiting of a persons ability to generate earnings for their family is sickening. The fact that other people are earning money off of it is downright criminal. It's a scheme and you've fallen head over heals for it. Congrats on your newfound support of "voluntary communism."

Oh, and the NCAA makes over $800 million a year just on the basketball tournament and they use it to run commercials telling people like you that they're all about the athlete.

They are allowed to make money for their skillset. They can go to Canada if they feel like it, they just don't want to. Why? Because playing college football is actually a pretty sweet deal and extremely far from 'sickening'. The NFL can decide to keep people out until a certain age, just like any company can make their own decisions on how they will hire. You can't force the NFL to draft certain players.

The solution to this is not for the NCAA to pay players. First, it would not be nearly as much as you probably think and certainly not as much as people claim they are 'worth'. Second, again, it would ruin college football and take away most of the money it generates anyway. Sure, then the NFL would probably allow high schoolers to go straight to the league, but that would benefit, what, 1-2% of those college football players. The rest? Sorry, sucks for you, hope you liked that $5,000 you got that one time. And even then, the benefit, when considering maturity and the ability to develop, is questionable.

This is not communism, or slavery, or servitude, and the arguments that suggest it is are absurd and hurt the argument to begin with. To be honest, college football doesn't generate money because of the individual players anyway. It generates money because of the school. Nobody pays to go to games saying, 'I've just gotta see Jeremy Chappelle play football.' They go because Mississippi State is playing. Let the college football players create their own league apart from the schools and see how much money it generates. I guarantee you it would be far less than the amount they get in scholarship money, not to mention the other perks they receive.

How is this criminal? Don't people make money off HS sports, too? Is not paying those players criminal? What about charging for people to attend the middle school theater production?

I'd like for you to tell me exactly who is making money off these players and how much they're making. Because it isn't the NCAA; all but 4% of the NCAA's revenues go back to conferences or to putting on NCAA events. So the rest is returned to these schools. And that benefits the players, whether you admit it or not. Not in a, here's cash in your pocket way, but any proposal I've heard for putting that cash in the players' pockets is either not feasible or would destroy the sport.

The bottom line is, these players work hard to play football. They chose to go to a school to play football because it provides a free education and because it gives them a chance to possibly play professionally. They are compensated for that. Just about all of them could not otherwise make anything out of that ability to play football. And the ones that could, the NFL has told them can not play until a certain point. They do have other options, but they chose to play college football.

Again, your issue should be with the NFL's age limit, not the NCAA's refusal to pay players cash.

[smootness]

The reason the current system is wrong is simple. The colleges around the country, collectively as the NCAA, have a monopoly on the market for opportunities for young men and women to provide their skill set and are exerting their monopolistic power to prevent athletes from being compensated.

Let's not pretend like this discussion is about anything but college football, and sometimes, men's basketball. There is 0 demand for pretty much any other college sport outside of the confines of college athletics, and you can't have a monopoly on something when there is no demand for it.

[Irondawg]

hack - well lets look at the two alternatives you propose and think them through for a minute:

1) Draft - there is no rationale way to make this work. Athletes choose their school on a number of factors, a large part of which for many are location and academics. A kid from MS might not be happy being drafted to Oregon state or to a school that has a horrible program in his major. If this were minor league football only with no schooling involved it might could work, but that's not the case.

2) Free market - so under this scenario what would the boundries be? Anything goes into a signing bonus, annual salary and kickbacks for relatives and friends?

[starkvegasdawg]

The only way to stop the cheating is to change the rules.

That's like saying the only way to stop speeders is to raise the speed limit. Whatever you make the rules to be, someone is going to break them to get a competitive advantage. The reason they do that is because they do the risk/benefit analysis and decided that it is worth the risk to break the rules to get a certain player to play for their school. Until their is some kind of punishment for the rogue boosters and school officials that engage or condone this behavior it is not going to stop. And until the players are legitiamately scared that their chance at future earnings in the pros is going to be jeopardized they are going to continue to accept the improper benefits. The kids that go into division one sports willingly agree to the terms set forth. They know full well before they sign that LOI what is expected of them, what they will get in return, and what others will get in return. When they sign that LOI they agree that in return for their skillset and play on the field they will get a free education as well as the other perks a NCAA athlete receives within the rules (gift bags at bowls, etc.) That is just like any other job. When you sign your contract you agree that you will provide your skillset to the employer for a set amount of compensation. After you have been on the job a while you can then ask for a raise if you are good enough. In college athletics, that raise is getting drafted to go pro.

[Political Hack]

So they have to move to Canada to pursue the American dream... I quit reading there.

I think a draft is a terrible solution, but it's a way to "correct" the current situation. There would have to be boundaries around the free market solution, just like there are with coaches' salaries. E.g., In MS, you can ony have a four year deal. Also, the NFL does it already so a general framework for the system is there. There are some negatives to doing it this way, but kids would still have the choice to pursue a great education from a good academic school or get paid to go to OM. It's up to them, and ultimately isn't collegiate athletics supposed to be about the kids who participate?

[Johnson85]

This is not communism, or slavery, or servitude, and the arguments that suggest it is are absurd and hurt the argument to begin with.

It's collusion. You have to have some collusion to have a league, but there should be a players' union to offset the power of the NCAA cartel. It's ridiculous that coaches make a multimillion dollar salary and players make closer to minimum wage.

[Political Hack]

minimum wage would be a HUGE upgrade at most Universities.

[smootness]

You're telling me I'm insane for offering a legitimate way they could make money right now if they're good enough because it would make them go to Canada...yet you think a draft for college athletes is a good way to go about it?

So I would assume, then, based on your wording, that only those athletes that chose to be involved in the draft would be...and that only those players drafted would be 'paid'? So then here's what we'll do. The players who chose not to be drafted aren't paid a salary but do get the scholarship, facilities, all the perks they normally get now...those who chose to go into the draft will be paid a salary but will not get the education, scholarship, or any of the other perks that come along with it.

You tell me how many you think would chose to get the salary.

Because again, that salary isn't going to be as much as you probably think it will be. And if you're paying the players directly, you won't have much money to build facilities, pay people like nutritionists, etc...and you're already paying them, and they've willingly decided to remove themselves from the current system, so why also offer them free tuition? Nope, they will have to pay that using their hard-earned salary if they want to get the diploma as well. This is, after all, the free market, we're not just going to give you things because we want you to have them.

We could go with that system...or, we could understand that there already is a free market for football players their age...and we could understand that if this were truly a 'free market' system - meaning the players are paid directly based on how much people are willing to pay to go see them, aside from their connection with any school - then those players would be paid very, very little, far less than the amount of compensation they currently receive.

The problem is, people see numbers in the tens of millions and they see the players not getting paid an actual paycheck and they cry foul. But that money supports far more schools/players than you probably think it does, and it ignores that a) the players are already compensated incredibly handsomely (again, pleeeease sign my kid up for some of that indentured servitude) and b) that they actually do have other options; they don't have to play college football. They chose to. Why? Because it is a very sweet deal.

[archdog]

Yes...this thought that the football players are getting a raw deal is absurd. Without college football, most of these guys would be getting nothing out of football. If you want to make a case that some should be allowed to pursue the NFL right out of HS to make more money, that's a different argument, but don't attack the current way they're compensated. And I happen to think that rule is to the benefit of almost everyone as well.

There it is. Let them go straight to the NFL, until then if they want to play football at a college there are rules that have to be followed. Any of these players could go to the CFL instead. I believe its the scattered tail on campus that really keeps them there.

[smootness]

minimum wage would be a HUGE upgrade at most Universities.

Just chose Auburn at random. Tuition for in-state students? Just under $10,000 per semester. Out-of-state? Over $26,000 per semester. So even for in-state students at Auburn, they are receiving $20,000/year in compensation just from the tuition alone.

This does not at all begin to include books, room/board, use of facilities, nutritionists, food, and on and on for the perks D1 football players receive.

How, exactly, are they making far less than minimum wage? That is an absurd argument.

[ShotgunDawg]

hack - well lets look at the two alternatives you propose and think them through for a minute:

1) Draft - there is no rationale way to make this work. Athletes choose their school on a number of factors, a large part of which for many are location and academics. A kid from MS might not be happy being drafted to Oregon state or to a school that has a horrible program in his major. If this were minor league football only with no schooling involved it might could work, but that's not the case.

2) Free market - so under this scenario what would the boundries be? Anything goes into a signing bonus, annual salary and kickbacks for relatives and friends?

A draft will work:

Easy fix - Let the kid go through the recruiting process and narrow his list down to 3 schools. Then, in the draft, schools can only draft players that have their school as one of the 3 on the kid's list, and players can only be drafted by the 3 schools on their list.

Kids take 5 visits and narrow it down to three schools. Problem solved, kid gets to choose what location, type of school, and type of coaches he wants to play for. But, it limits cheating because OM isn't going to spend money a player that they probably won't get.

A kid from Mississippi isn't going to put Oregon State down as a school he would like to to go to unless he is Ok going there.

Problem solved, keep poking holes in a college football draft, and I'll keep finding simple solutions.

[Political Hack]

you're continually proving yourself to be ill informed. Athletes get tuition, books, and meals. Most pay for their own apartments. their own car. their own insurance. their own food off campus. their own gas. their own utilities.

Meanwhile the NCAA is selling their jersey online for a profit and they get none of it. I do agree with your idea about the NFL, but that's a health & maturity issue. Moat athletes need that developmental period and there's no where else IN THIS COUNTRY to get an equitable shot at the pros outside of the monopoly that is the NCAA.

[Barking 13]

I agree with Smootness.. they get something I never had offered to me, a free education and all that goes with it .... some of them use it some of them won't.. I have seen plenty of ex-college (and NFL, for that matter) players working menial jobs when the "glory days" are over... and there are the smart ones that actually have a business, finance, coaching, etc. degree to fall back on..

[Barking 13]

you're continually proving yourself to be ill informed. Athletes get tuition, books, and meals. Most pay for their own apartments. their own car. their own insurance. their own food off campus. their own gas. their own utilities.

Meanwhile the NCAA is selling their jersey online for a profit and they get none of it. I do agree with your idea about the NFL, but that's a health & maturity issue. Moat athletes need that developmental period and there's no where else IN THIS COUNTRY to get an equitable shot at the pros outside of the monopoly that is the NCAA.

choices...

[smootness]

K, so what happens when almost everybody lists Alabama, USC, and Ohio State as their 3 schools of choice? Are we still going to have limitations on scholarships? Are are we doing away with scholarships entirely since we're now paying them?

How does a school like Iowa State get anybody? Do we re-draft after the top schools are filled up, and kids have to choose 3 new schools?

Regardless, the whole draft idea is crazy and would obviously never be implemented. For one, it would lead to an unbelievable amount of transfers. Two, unless we do away with the school aspect entirely, most of these kids are still choosing a school far more than they are choosing a football team in reality. So we're going to make them go somewhere other than the ideal spot for them for educational purposes simply because it is now out of their hands?

What do you do with a kid whose father played at State, and his father before him played at State, and he grew up going to State games, and the only thing he's ever wanted to do is play for, and graduate from, State? You're going to force him to go to Auburn simply because he had to put 2 other schools down? And this is a better system?

Guys, the current system is not broke. That is a fabrication. The athletes get a sweet deal, and no one can make a compelling case for why that isn't true. Just leave it as it is.

[codeDawg]

They are allowed to make money for their skillset. They can go to Canada if they feel like it, they just don't want to.

Geography matters when considering monopolies. These kids do not have reasonable alternatives within the US.


...it would not be nearly as much as you probably think

I agree. I think most players would get the same or not much more than they get today. Most, however, is not all. If alumni are willing to pay it today behind the scenes, why would they not be willing to pay it above board?


it would ruin college football and take away most of the money it generates anyway

I get the feeling that this is what you are most concerned about. How college football would change for YOU. It is not about YOU. It is about the rights of individuals to be compensated for the value they provide. Would the landscape change such that MSU would probably not be part of the 'A' league. Yes. Would I be disappointed. Yes. Does my disappointment matter more than the rights of American citizens?




This is stupid. People do go to see Johnny Football, Tim Tebow, Mark Ingram, etc. etc. That's why they are worth more than they are being compensated. That's like saying nobody goes to see Tom Brady play, they go to see the Patriots.

[QUOTE]How is this criminal? Don't people make money off HS sports, too? Is not paying those players criminal? What about charging for people to attend the middle school theater production?

If people were throwing around hundreds of thousands of dollars for high school drama actors under the covers because high schools decided it was in the best interest of the kids to protect their amateur status and not ruin high school theatre, this would be an issue there too.


I'd like for you to tell me exactly who is making money off these players and how much they're making.
1. ESPN
2. Cable Companies
3. EA Sports
3. CBS
4. College Coaches
5. Nike, Addidas, Under Armor
6. The schools themselves
7. The list goes on and on...


They chose to go to a school to play football because it provides a free education and because it gives them a chance to possibly play professionally. They are compensated for that. Just about all of them could not otherwise make anything out of that ability to play football. And the ones that could, the NFL has told them can not play until a certain point. They do have other options, but they chose to play college football.

Again, your issue should be with the NFL's age limit, not the NCAA's refusal to pay players cash.

This is true to an extent. A certain amount of players would play for a scholarship and that is all. Some would play for more, if the NCAA (and the schools inclusively) did not hold a monopoly over this level of football.

I'm still missing what your argument is against letting football players be paid in fair market system. It sounds to me like your argument is that it would change college football. Well, yes it would. Just because you don't like how it would change the game does not mean that others should be punished.

The argument that they, "get compensated enough" is not an argument. "Enough" is not something that is judged by your approximation in our society. "Enough" is what someone will agree to given reasonable alternatives. I think actors get paid more than they SHOULD, but you know what, they generate a bunch of money for people producing films. They get paid what the open market will allow.

[smootness]

choices...

Exactly. They have their room/board and food paid for; some choose to live/eat elsewhere, but they still have it paid for if they want it paid for. And based on my experience, most actually choose to live and eat where their things are paid for.

So they pay for a car. You know who else pays for a car? All other college students. And most football players, if we were to turn this into a truly free market, are worth no more to a school than your average college student. Yet they get all the other perks that come with it.

I don't get why, Hack, you are more ok with the NFL having an age limit than you are with the NCAA providing what they already do. Again, if you're going to start paying players, they're actually going to have less access to the things that are aiding their development than they do right now.

Again, all this comes back to, why start paying them? What is the reasoning for that? Because it won't be that much and there will be repercussions; they will have things taken away that they currently enjoy. How is there outrage over what a college football player gets?

Did you not see Oregon's facility?

[smootness]

I get the feeling that this is what you are most concerned about. How college football would change for YOU. It is not about YOU. It is about the rights of individuals to be compensated for the value they provide. Would the landscape change such that MSU would probably not be part of the 'A' league. Yes. Would I be disappointed. Yes. Does my disappointment matter more than the rights of American citizens?

This is where you have it wrong. No, I'm not concerned about how it would change for me. My point is that if you begin paying players, I promise you, people will care far less about it, there will be less revenue generated overall, and there will be less money to provide things for these players.

It will essentially become minor-league football, and that will be far worse for these athletes.

And again, your entire argument is also that they don't have the opportunity to play in the NFL, not what they're currently getting. You said it would be far worse for some but better for others; ok, then your issue is that those players can't play in the NFL until a certain point.

Take issue with the NFL, not with the NCAA. The gigantic majority of college football players are getting plenty, and I don't mean plenty in a general sense, I mean far more than they would otherwise be getting for playing football.

[ShotgunDawg]

K, so what happens when almost everybody lists Alabama, USC, and Ohio State as their 3 schools of choice? Are we still going to have limitations on scholarships? Are are we doing away with scholarships entirely since we're now paying them?

How does a school like Iowa State get anybody? Do we re-draft after the top schools are filled up, and kids have to choose 3 new schools?

Regardless, the whole draft idea is crazy and would obviously never be implemented. For one, it would lead to an unbelievable amount of transfers. Two, unless we do away with the school aspect entirely, most of these kids are still choosing a school far more than they are choosing a football team in reality. So we're going to make them go somewhere other than the ideal spot for them for educational purposes simply because it is now out of their hands?

What do you do with a kid whose father played at State, and his father before him played at State, and he grew up going to State games, and the only thing he's ever wanted to do is play for, and graduate from, State? You're going to force him to go to Auburn simply because he had to put 2 other schools down? And this is a better system?

Guys, the current system is not broke. That is a fabrication. The athletes get a sweet deal, and no one can make a compelling case for why that isn't true. Just leave it as it is.

Schools have to make a formal offer to you, just like they do now. Kids would only be able to list schools that made a formal offer. Kids don't commit to schools that they don't have offers from now.

[smootness]

Schools have to make a formal offer to you, just like they do now. Kids would only be able to list schools that made a formal offer. Kids don't commit to schools that they don't have offers from now.

This doesn't solve anything. Schools are still going to have to hand out as many offers as they do currently, if not more, because they won't know who will go where. If you limit the amount of offers to 25, it would obviously be a mess. So you have to allow for more, and the same problem occurs.

What if State gives out 40 offers, and all but 5 of those kids are picked up by other schools? Or what if a kid lists 3 schools that did offer, and those schools fill up before he gets chosen by anyone?

[Barking 13]

If anything, I think they should get some sort of stipend. Then maybe some sort of performance bonus for conduct, conditioning, leadership, grades, etc.

[codeDawg]

This is where you have it wrong. No, I'm not concerned about how it would change for me. My point is that if you begin paying players, I promise you, people will care far less about it, there will be less revenue generated overall, and there will be less money to provide things for these players.

It will essentially become minor-league football, and that will be far worse for these athletes.

And again, your entire argument is also that they don't have the opportunity to play in the NFL, not what they're currently getting. You said it would be far worse for some but better for others; ok, then your issue is that those players can't play in the NFL until a certain point.

Take issue with the NFL, not with the NCAA. The gigantic majority of college football players are getting plenty, and I don't mean plenty in a general sense, I mean far more than they would otherwise be getting for playing football.

The market dynamics that happen when you stop treating someone unfairly should not drive the decision to treat them fairly or not.

I don't take issue with the NFL. They make the argument that it is not safe for a person to play in the NFL before a certain age. That's a player safety issue, and that's fine.

What I take issue with is that the NCAA (and member institutions) hold a monopoly on athletics below a certain level and are colluding to prevent people from being compensated at a level commensurate with their value in an open and fair market. There is a lot of money exchanging hands below the table. It should come above board and we should put in place a system that is fair to everyone. That may mean that MSU doesn't play in the big-boy league. Some schools may even choose to maintain an amateur status program, which is fine, but the status quo where all levels are restricted is not morally justifiable.

[Political Hack]

I agree with Smootness.. they get something I never had offered to me, a free education and all that goes with it ....

How much money did you make the University while in school?

[smootness]

The market dynamics that happen when you stop treating someone unfairly should not drive the decision to treat them fairly or not.

And my point is that they aren't treated unfairly because of what would happen were the system not constructed as it currently is. They are treated more than fairly.


I don't take issue with the NFL. They make the argument that it is not safe for a person to play in the NFL before a certain age. That's a player safety issue, and that's fine.

What I take issue with is that the NCAA (and member institutions) hold a monopoly on athletics below a certain level and are colluding to prevent people from being compensated at a level commensurate with their value in an open and fair market.

FWIW, I don't have an issue with what the NFL is doing, either, but you do if you're being honest in your argument. You claim it is collusion to prevent college players from being paid by anyone even though the people who created the system are the ones making the rules and allowing a player to decide whether they want to enter it or not, yet you don't think it's collusion that owners would stop players from entering the league when one or more teams would want the player, or that they keep players from being paid what they could make were there no salary restrictions on rookies.

And why is it ok to collude in the name of player safety, but not to protect players from the consequences of having a fully open market system of college football? Your argument does not make sense; either they are both collusion, and anti-free market, or neither is.

You claim that it isn't right for someone else to determine what is 'enough', that it should be determined by the free market, yet you are ok with restricting the free market in the name of someone else determining what is 'safe'.

[RougeDawg]

None of you are even considering any Title 9 ramifications. I don't think I need to delve too deep into what would be a huge can of worms opened, if football players ever get paid.

And a $80-100k education "Interest FREE" is a hell of a lot more than minimum wage. They basically only pay for anything their scholarship doesn't cover. They can even have off campus housing paid for with the money they have that doesn't cover the other expenses (books, meals, etc.). A player choosing student housing has no outside costs except meals and gas money, but what student doesn't not incur these costs.

There's no justification in paying them. NONE, unless college football is separated into a different league and dissociated from the schools, which the fans will never allow.

[Political Hack]

I want to run a business with employees under the same system the NCAA does. Will yall come work for me? I'll give you books, a room, and a meal plan... My meal plan is awesome. It cost $8,000,000 a year. So technically your compensation is $8M a year, so don't worry about getting a paycheck. Also, the books I give you are really expensive. They cost $1M each. So technically, the prices that I've instituted over the services that I provide are being given to you for free, so you should be more than happy allowing me to make millions off your labor.

Thanks. You can just PM me your resumes.

[codeDawg]

And my point is that they aren't treated unfairly because of what would happen were the system not constructed as it currently is. They are treated more than fairly.

You have no basis to say that a system where people are treated fairly would not exist if you started to treat people fairly. Because it would be different does not mean that it would not be successful, and again, is no reason to support unfair treatment of US citizens.


FWIW, I don't have an issue with what the NFL is doing, either, but you do if you're being honest in your argument. You claim it is collusion to prevent college players from being paid by anyone even though the people who created the system are the ones making the rules and allowing a player to decide whether they want to enter it or not, yet you don't think it's collusion that owners would stop players from entering the league when one or more teams would want the player, or that they keep players from being paid what they could make were there no salary restrictions on rookies.

And why is it ok to collude in the name of player safety, but not to protect players from the consequences of having a fully open market system of college football? Your argument does not make sense; either they are both collusion, and anti-free market, or neither is.

The NFL has a rule in place to protect players from undue injury, and therefore protect itself from liability. Now if the NFL came up with something that said you could join the NFL, but we would pay you a rate the same as everyone else at your age and the player's union cannot negotiate that, then we would have an issue. The NFL is not profiting from labor and compensating unfairly. Eligibility to work and compensation for that work are two different issues.


You claim that it isn't right for someone else to determine what is 'enough', that it should be determined by the free market, yet you are ok with restricting the free market in the name of someone else determining what is 'safe'.

Yes. A company has the right to limit it's own liabilities. That is a different issue than compensation.

[codeDawg]

I want to run a business with employees under the same system the NCAA does. Will yall come work for me? I'll give you books, a room, and a meal plan... My meal plan is awesome. It cost $8,000,000 a year. So technically your compensation is $8M a year, so don't worry about getting a paycheck. Also, the books I give you are really expensive. They cost $1M each. So technically, the prices that I've instituted over the services that I provide are being given to you for free, so you should be more than happy allowing me to make millions off your labor.

Thanks. You can just PM me your resumes.

Oh, by the way, I make several billions of dollars off of what you produce, but don't bother going and asking around a similar companies for more money because we all got together and decided to only offer this same deal and you can't get hired at the big company until you have 3 years of experience AND if I catch you taking money under the table, your shot at getting out of my company at all is not too good.

The food is really, really good. Nobody gave me meal plan like this when I started out.

[codeDawg]

None of you are even considering any Title 9 ramifications. I don't think I need to delve too deep into what would be a huge can of worms opened, if football players ever get paid.

And a $80-100k education "Interest FREE" is a hell of a lot more than minimum wage. They basically only pay for anything their scholarship doesn't cover. They can even have off campus housing paid for with the money they have that doesn't cover the other expenses (books, meals, etc.). A player choosing student housing has no outside costs except meals and gas money, but what student doesn't not incur these costs.

There's no justification in paying them. NONE, unless college football is separated into a different league and dissociated from the schools, which the fans will never allow.

Dude. There is no justification for not paying them. What makes your opinion on what is fair compensation the right answer. What if I thought you made enough at your job just because I thought it was good money? It doesn't matter.

If schools can't pay them, they won't. The ones that can will. I'm not arguing a forced incentive program. I'm arguing take off the cap.

[smootness]

I want to run a business with employees under the same system the NCAA does. Will yall come work for me? I'll give you books, a room, and a meal plan... My meal plan is awesome. It cost $8,000,000 a year. So technically your compensation is $8M a year, so don't worry about getting a paycheck. Also, the books I give you are really expensive. They cost $1M each. So technically, the prices that I've instituted over the services that I provide are being given to you for free, so you should be more than happy allowing me to make millions off your labor.

Thanks. You can just PM me your resumes.

Depends on what my other options are. If you are offering me the chance to do something I love that I can't do anywhere else, I might...if I can get a better deal elsewhere, I won't. If I value what you're providing (experience, training, whatever it is) enough that it outweighs my other options to do anything else, I'll probably join on up.

But I doubt you get anyone to join your program because it sounds terrible relative to the other options available. People are signing up to play college football. Would people willingly sign up to be exploited and receive nothing compared to what they could get elsewhere?

Answer that question for me, and I'll tell you whether or not your scenario is completely asinine and whether it brings anything to the table.

The fact that people do play college football, where no one would agree to work for you, means you just helped prove my point. Thanks!

[smootness]

you can't get hired at the big company until you have 3 years of experience

Sounds like the big company would start hiring people w/o experience since no one would agree to gain the experience you're offering. If they want employees, they'll change their policy.

[RougeDawg]

Dude. There is no justification for not paying them. What makes your opinion on what is fair compensation the right answer. What if I thought you made enough at your job just because I thought it was good money? It doesn't matter.

If schools can't pay them, they won't. The ones that can will. I'm not arguing a forced incentive program. I'm arguing take off the cap.

All of you act like these football programs just make tons of money. Hardly any turn a profit. So where's this profit you speak of. Yes they receive millions each year. Do you think it's free to run a football program, Athletic Deparemrnt, university? Thelnwy sustains the university, which on turn provides these athletes an arena to display their talents, basically cost free, and offer them the chance to obtain high salary jobs upon graduation or a chance to play professional sports.

Many of you are losing sight of the big picture. These programs, Ath. Depts. and universities don't run on sunshine and unicorn milk. At the rate they are all losing federal and state funding, big time athletics is the main contributor into keeping these businesses (universities) afloat. I can tell a lot of you here aren't involved with business dealings.

Besides you talk about things being unfair now. What do you think will happen when the big boys can dish out $100+k per player, while the little MSU's might be able to dish out an average of $10k a player? You think that shit would be fun to watch? You think we continue to sell out Davis Wade if we had an Astros team and 10 SEC teams were Yankees types? Some of you need to open your GD eyes and see the big picture. The day they start allowing payments to college athletes, is the first day of the end of college athletics. No more going back to Starkville to watch football. It will eventually dry up in a system you propose. Fans will lose interest, and funds will no longer be in place to facilitate it at the smaller budget/endowment universities.

If either alumni or universities are allowed to legally start paying, you will soon establish, a much larger gap between the "have's"and have nots, lose fan interest, and eventually lead to a minor league of the "have's" only. If that's what you want, let the chips fly.

[Barking 13]

How much money did you make the University while in school?

None.. but some of them don't either... it's a gamble every time you sign somebody... then there's that little title IX thing... somebody has to pay for all that stuff. so basically you may be playing football, but you're helping build our soccer team and facilities.. just the way of the world...

I'm not argueing that they don't need some kind of extra benefit, but look at what gets produced in the end. You can have a Derek Sherrod, or a Dontae Walker... for the same money...

[codeDawg]

Depends on what my other options are. If you are offering me the chance to do something I love that I can't do anywhere else, I might...if I can get a better deal elsewhere, I won't. If I value what you're providing (experience, training, whatever it is) enough that it outweighs my other options to do anything else, I'll probably join on up.

But I doubt you get anyone to join your program because it sounds terrible relative to the other options available. People are signing up to play college football. Would people willingly sign up to be exploited and receive nothing compared to what they could get elsewhere?

Answer that question for me, and I'll tell you whether or not your scenario is completely asinine and whether it brings anything to the table.

The fact that people do play college football, where no one would agree to work for you, means you just helped prove my point. Thanks!

This is obviously too complicated for you to keep straight. The point of the analogy is that the next level only accepts people with a certain amount of experience and all the ones accepting entry level got together and decided to put rules in place to keep wages where they want them. There are no viable alternatives, except to run the risk of accepting money under the table which endangers the rest of your career.

If you can't see how unfair the current system is, I can't argue with you. I hope something like what is happening to Will Redmond never happens to your family.

/lastPost

[Political Hack]

It is simply amazing to me that anyone could be ok with the system as it currently sits.

When they get reporters, and news articles, and coaches foaming at the mouth over them... you're right, they're not going anywhere else. The fan fare that goes into the process creates more buy in than any company or competitor could ever offer. And then they get exploited for four years if they're lucky enough to not wash out.

Also, the excuse that "only a few schools make money" is horse shit. Almost all major football programs make money and then distribute it to other sports. Volleyball and soccer are riding the backs of football players along with the NCAA, coaches, and University Presidents. Difference being of course that the NCAA and coaches are making the big bucks and the Volleyball players are getting some cool unis.

[FlabLoser]

It is simply amazing to me that anyone could be ok with the system as it currently sits.

When they get reporters, and news articles, and coaches foaming at the mouth over them... you're right, they're not going anywhere else. The fan fare that goes into the process creates more buy in than any company or competitor could ever offer. And then they get exploited for four years if they're lucky enough to not wash out.

Also, the excuse that "only a few schools make money" is horse shit. Almost all major football programs make money and then distribute it to other sports. Volleyball and soccer are riding the backs of football players along with the NCAA, coaches, and University Presidents. Difference being of course that the NCAA and coaches are making the big bucks and the Volleyball players are getting some cool unis.

I agree with you on principle.


I hate where the principle is going to get us - to open season on big money boosters monopolizing all the big name players. Go to Bama, kid. Your signature will earn you a hundred grand by your sophomore year.

[MadDawg]

It is simply amazing to me that anyone could be ok with the system as it currently sits.


Exactly. Who the hell likes college sports?

[hacker]

The NCAA reminds me of alcohol and drug prohibition. There's just too much demand in the market for a service that is only questionably morally wrong. It's not going to work in the long run.

[Political Hack]

Exactly. Who the hell likes college sports?

I'm also not going to stop driving just because I don't like wearing my seatbelt.

[Johnson85]

It is simply amazing to me that anyone could be ok with the system as it currently sits.



I completely understand how people could be ok with the system as it is. It's pretty much awesome for everybody but the athletes. I don't understand how people can actually think it's fair or morally ok, unless they think that the blackmarket actually does a decent job of compensating players fairly, which it possibly does.

[Johnson85]

Depends on what my other options are. If you are offering me the chance to do something I love that I can't do anywhere else, I might...if I can get a better deal elsewhere, I won't. If I value what you're providing (experience, training, whatever it is) enough that it outweighs my other options to do anything else, I'll probably join on up.
You'd probably frown upon all the potential employers in your field getting together to decide that they will enter into an agreement where none of them would offer anything to their employees for three years except for training and modest living expenses. Sure, you could just go work in another field, but I suspect you'd think that was a somewhat bigger deal if it was you being colluded against.

[smootness]

And then they get exploited for four years if they're lucky enough to not wash out.

And you honestly believe a system in which anybody and everybody can bid for players won't exploit them? Sure, they get the money directly, but it's essentially a system where you just buy a slave at that point - I'm sure that money comes with stipulations.

[Irondawg]

No one is arguing the current system is correct - but the most reasonable arguments i see are some augmentations versus total overhaul.

You guys forget that a free market system DOES exist. Bill Gates is perfectly free to start his own football league consisting of anybody of any age. There is a reason nobody does it, people don't want to pay for a second class product. It's the reason the XFL failed, arena teams struggle and nobody cares about the Canadian Football League.

So yeah - let's just adopt that model to college. It's worked so well in the past.

...but, but, but what about the NFL? The NFL offers the best talent with a national brand. There are a limited number of teams spread geographically across the nation. They have a draft and franchise player protection and free agency to help keep the talent spread across the teams.

You go free market and college and I think you'll end with a host of problem. As people mentioned then you have to pay all athletes or face discrimination charges for starters. Best solution as I mentioned is stipend based on hours spent like work study but with a small increase to revenue generating sports.

[smootness]

You'd probably frown upon all the potential employers in your field getting together to decide that they will enter into an agreement where none of them would offer anything to their employees for three years except for training and modest living expenses. Sure, you could just go work in another field, but I suspect you'd think that was a somewhat bigger deal if it was you being colluded against.

I probably would. But if I knew that was the system ahead of time, and had an issue with it, I probably just wouldn't try to go into that field.

But comparing college students to employees is ridiculous anyway.

[Johnson85]

And you honestly believe a system in which anybody and everybody can bid for players won't exploit them? Sure, they get the money directly, but it's essentially a system where you just buy a slave at that point - I'm sure that money comes with stipulations.

So entering into a voluntary agreement for market based pay is slavery?

[hacker]

No one is arguing the current system is correct - but the most reasonable arguments i see are some augmentations versus total overhaul.

You guys forget that a free market system DOES exist. Bill Gates is perfectly free to start his own football league consisting of anybody of any age. There is a reason nobody does it, people don't want to pay for a second class product. It's the reason the XFL failed, arena teams struggle and nobody cares about the Canadian Football League.

So yeah - let's just adopt that model to college. It's worked so well in the past.

...but, but, but what about the NFL? The NFL offers the best talent with a national brand. There are a limited number of teams spread geographically across the nation. They have a draft and franchise player protection and free agency to help keep the talent spread across the teams.

You go free market and college and I think you'll end with a host of problem. As people mentioned then you have to pay all athletes or face discrimination charges for starters. Best solution as I mentioned is stipend based on hours spent like work study but with a small increase to revenue generating sports.

You are just wrong. If the NCAA was replaced with a better, free-market system, it would not be a second-class product. The NFL pays its players, and it's not a second-class product. You're defeating your own argument.

[smootness]

You are just wrong. If the NCAA was replaced with a better, free-market system, it would not be a second-class product. The NFL pays its players, and it's not a second-class product. You're defeating your own argument.

Yes, it would be, because the NFL already exists. You aren't getting the best players. It would essentially be a minor-league system, and it wouldn't make much money.

[Todd4State]

No one is arguing the current system is correct - but the most reasonable arguments i see are some augmentations versus total overhaul.

You guys forget that a free market system DOES exist. Bill Gates is perfectly free to start his own football league consisting of anybody of any age. There is a reason nobody does it, people don't want to pay for a second class product. It's the reason the XFL failed, arena teams struggle and nobody cares about the Canadian Football League.

So yeah - let's just adopt that model to college. It's worked so well in the past.

...but, but, but what about the NFL? The NFL offers the best talent with a national brand. There are a limited number of teams spread geographically across the nation. They have a draft and franchise player protection and free agency to help keep the talent spread across the teams.

You go free market and college and I think you'll end with a host of problem. As people mentioned then you have to pay all athletes or face discrimination charges for starters. Best solution as I mentioned is stipend based on hours spent like work study but with a small increase to revenue generating sports.

Hijack!

I wish the XFL had gone out and gotten some of the "bad boys" of the NFL- like Bill Romanowski. I think they had the right angle with the renegade league image and slutty cheerleaders. But then they wanted players that were clean cut and willing to play only for the love of the game? What?

A true competitor for the NFL would have made the NFL better.

[Political Hack]

discrimination? so hiring/recruiting/paying/acquiring the best performers to enhance your business is against the law?

We're talking complete overhaul. Get rid of the NCAA. Title IX no longer applies. Football is its own animal and revenue from there is not split between every Tom, Dick, and Harry anymore because they're giving it to the people who put asses in seats. That's the whole point.

[hacker]

Yes, it would be, because the NFL already exists. You aren't getting the best players. It would essentially be a minor-league system, and it wouldn't make much money.

So you consider college football a second-class product? If so, I guess that's our point of disagreement. Semantically, you're probably right. But in reality, college football is a juggernaut.

[BoomBoom]

Get rid of the NFL age limit, and institute a draft compensation system similar to one i originally heard proposed for the NBA: 7-year team friendly contracts, with one year off for each year of college completed.

There would be no point in OM paying a player $600k, because he could take the money, declare for the draft, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, he could declare after 1 year. The only reason these payoffs are worth it is because the players are locked out of the NFL for 3 years. The Cam situation would have never happened, because he could have gone straight to the NFL rather than Auburn and made a lot more than $200k.

The one year off bit is to give players an incentive to stay in school. It helps with discipline because you could lose the credit if you are kicked off the team. It balances the NCAA recruiting field out somewhat because the schools recruiting the best talent are also losing the most players early. In recruiting you'd start to hear things like "he's a four-year guy" or "he's committed to getting his degree" and that would be coveted by schools who don't want to waste a slot on a 1-year 3*. It would take college ball back to what it's supposed to be: student athletes, because those only in it for the money can get more in the NFL at any time so they won't be there.

Yes, there is the supposed safety issue. If it's that big a deal, get a minor league system going. Let NFL teams play their reserves in the new minor league to fill it out. Something like the D-league. Hell, it would even be televised and earn money. Think of all the MSU stars that never cracked 1st string in the NFL but would have starred on D-league teams, we'd tune in to watch. Most NFL reserves get beat up in practices but never see the field, they'd LOVE to get to play competitively under the lights again, especially with the chance to show their worth. Maybe the NFL isn't interested, but bottom line the NCAA problem doesn't get solved without the NFL cooperating. The NFL stands to gain, and can sell it to the players as saving college football while ending a system of non-compensation and rampant corruption. There would be some talent lost from the NCAA, but not much, and it would leave a more pure product in its place.

[Political Hack]

I like that direction BoomBoom, so long as the NCAA isn't managing it. They need a new organization that's actually aimed at ensuring the best interest of students rather than protecting its own relevancy. It can't be the University Presidents either. It needs to be a 3rd, independent party managing the well being of student athletes.

[hacker]

Get rid of the NFL age limit, and institute a draft compensation system similar to one i originally heard proposed for the NBA: 7-year team friendly contracts, with one year off for each year of college completed.

There would be no point in OM paying a player $600k, because he could take the money, declare for the draft, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, he could declare after 1 year. The only reason these payoffs are worth it is because the players are locked out of the NFL for 3 years. The Cam situation would have never happened, because he could have gone straight to the NFL rather than Auburn and made a lot more than $200k.

The one year off bit is to give players an incentive to stay in school. It helps with discipline because you could lose the credit if you are kicked off the team. It balances the NCAA recruiting field out somewhat because the schools recruiting the best talent are also losing the most players early. In recruiting you'd start to hear things like "he's a four-year guy" or "he's committed to getting his degree" and that would be coveted by schools who don't want to waste a slot on a 1-year 3*. It would take college ball back to what it's supposed to be: student athletes, because those only in it for the money can get more in the NFL at any time so they won't be there.

Yes, there is the supposed safety issue. If it's that big a deal, get a minor league system going. Let NFL teams play their reserves in the new minor league to fill it out. Something like the D-league. Hell, it would even be televised and earn money. Think of all the MSU stars that never cracked 1st string in the NFL but would have starred on D-league teams, we'd tune in to watch. Most NFL reserves get beat up in practices but never see the field, they'd LOVE to get to play competitively under the lights again, especially with the chance to show their worth. Maybe the NFL isn't interested, but bottom line the NCAA problem doesn't get solved without the NFL cooperating. The NFL stands to gain, and can sell it to the players as saving college football while ending a system of non-compensation and rampant corruption. There would be some talent lost from the NCAA, but not much, and it would leave a more pure product in its place.

This actually sounds pretty awesome.

[smootness]

So you consider college football a second-class product? If so, I guess that's our point of disagreement. Semantically, you're probably right. But in reality, college football is a juggernaut.

It's a juggernaut because of the schools associated with it. Take out the schools, replace them with names like the Southern Cal Wombats, and nobody cares.

[smootness]

Get rid of the NCAA. Title IX no longer applies.

Uh, the NCAA has nothing to do with Title IX. It is federal law. You would have to completely disassociate the football team from the university, which, again, would kill the sport and make paying players a moot point anyway.

All these arguments for paying them or opening up a 'free market' system are crazy. They will never work and would only bring about the end of the sport. Why? Because on the truly open market, these players pretty much get nothing.

[Political Hack]

I think you missed the part about "overhaul." It will not work with Title IX. That would have to be changed.

Free market systems do ok in other venues. not sure why you think we should do something else for football.

[Todd4State]

Get rid of the NFL age limit, and institute a draft compensation system similar to one i originally heard proposed for the NBA: 7-year team friendly contracts, with one year off for each year of college completed.

There would be no point in OM paying a player $600k, because he could take the money, declare for the draft, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or, he could declare after 1 year. The only reason these payoffs are worth it is because the players are locked out of the NFL for 3 years. The Cam situation would have never happened, because he could have gone straight to the NFL rather than Auburn and made a lot more than $200k.

The one year off bit is to give players an incentive to stay in school. It helps with discipline because you could lose the credit if you are kicked off the team. It balances the NCAA recruiting field out somewhat because the schools recruiting the best talent are also losing the most players early. In recruiting you'd start to hear things like "he's a four-year guy" or "he's committed to getting his degree" and that would be coveted by schools who don't want to waste a slot on a 1-year 3*. It would take college ball back to what it's supposed to be: student athletes, because those only in it for the money can get more in the NFL at any time so they won't be there.

Yes, there is the supposed safety issue. If it's that big a deal, get a minor league system going. Let NFL teams play their reserves in the new minor league to fill it out. Something like the D-league. Hell, it would even be televised and earn money. Think of all the MSU stars that never cracked 1st string in the NFL but would have starred on D-league teams, we'd tune in to watch. Most NFL reserves get beat up in practices but never see the field, they'd LOVE to get to play competitively under the lights again, especially with the chance to show their worth. Maybe the NFL isn't interested, but bottom line the NCAA problem doesn't get solved without the NFL cooperating. The NFL stands to gain, and can sell it to the players as saving college football while ending a system of non-compensation and rampant corruption. There would be some talent lost from the NCAA, but not much, and it would leave a more pure product in its place.

Great ideas, and as far as a minor league system- there is the UFL which the NFL could easily buy out. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why they did away with NFL Europe. A lot of good players came through that league.

[smootness]

I think you missed the part about "overhaul." It will not work with Title IX. That would have to be changed.

Free market systems do ok in other venues. not sure why you think we should do something else for football.

Because there is very little free market demand for college-age football players who don't play for colleges. And if you're looking to avoid Title IX, it couldn't have anything to do with colleges.

And in 15 years, we'd get several, 'What were the repercussions of doing away with college football?' articles, and you'd hear sob story after sob story of kids who could have potentially made something of themselves who instead took the money, didn't get the education, and ended up crashing and burning.

Then we'd start talking about why we ever did away with it and who it became 'more fair' for.

[FlabLoser]

Olbermann just teed off on all this with a hell of a monologue on his new ESPN show. I'm gonna like this show.

[Political Hack]

Because there is very little free market demand for college-age football players who don't play for colleges. And if you're looking to avoid Title IX, it couldn't have anything to do with colleges.

And in 15 years, we'd get several, 'What were the repercussions of doing away with college football?' articles, and you'd hear sob story after sob story of kids who could have potentially made something of themselves who instead took the money, didn't get the education, and ended up crashing and burning.

Then we'd start talking about why we ever did away with it and who it became 'more fair' for.

yea. no kids wash out now and have 30 for 30's made about them after taking huge cash payouts, being abused by the system, and failing out. Since that's obviously not occurring now we should just use them to make billions of dollars for the universities and NCAA without giving them any interest in the revenue they're helping bring in.

[smootness]

yea. no kids wash out now and have 30 for 30's made about them after taking huge cash payouts, being abused by the system, and failing out. Since that's obviously not occurring now we should just use them to make billions of dollars for the universities and NCAA without giving them any interest in the revenue they're helping bring in.

At least now if they screw it up, it's all on them. Everything they need is right there for them.

And all I see from people advocating for players to be paid are generalities about 'millions and billions' that everyone is making and how the players get nothing. This is a completely dishonest argument.

First, again, the NCAA does not make millions, and especially not 'billions' on college football. They make, essentially, nothing. Anyone who uses this as part of their argument is simply hurting their own argument.

And someone please show me exactly how much money is being brought in and where it goes. And don't talk to me about ESPN or any other networks...they will get their money no matter what; the players won't ever see any of that regardless. But just about all the rest of the money goes to the schools and they use it not only to pour back into the football program, but to fund other athletic programs. So who is exploiting these football players...the volleyball team? Ok, but that's a pretty weak argument.

To turn this argument around, the schools are the ones who invested in the program. They built the stadiums, they decided to build the facilities and pour money into the football program. How would it be fair if all the revenues from that then went to the current players are on the team, who are there from anywhere between 1-5 years?

[Political Hack]

you're right. they make money on the NCAA tournament, which is why Duke, UNC, and Kentucky don't go on probation on basketball but Ohio State, USC, and Miami do in football.

$800 million from the basketball tournament. the rest comes from using players' images and selling naming rights through video games, official merchandise, etc...

either way I'm done with this argument. it's obvious you think players get a fair shake from the NCAA now. I disagree and think its amazing anyone could think they're getting a "good deal."