Yes. The 24 is for in state. Not a big deal. Either way I've put you in charge.!!!
Printable View
Yes. The 24 is for in state. Not a big deal. Either way I've put you in charge.!!!
And you can stack academic aid on athletic aid now if I understand correctly, so that should help.
I look forward to teams like USC and Syracuse having their way with us with MS Croots.
This is what some people on this board don't see. The difference of $100/month is enough to sway recruitsQuote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
$100/month is well within the bounds of what already happens. If someone at Syracuse is willing to pay $100/month to Mississippi high schoolers to come play there, he already is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowbell
So you do not want a kid to earn an extra $100/month that someone is willing to pay, so that we can preserve the integrity? of what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowbell
It was inevitable (and needed imo) that college athletes were going to get paid. This current model is a result of the NCAA and schools ignoring the issue and doing nothing.
Also, I wonder how these nil fund programs, or whatever they'll be called, will affect donations to the universities and their athletic departments. A lot of people have a limited amount of money to give and if they give to an nil fund they may give less to the school.
He didn't say he wanted them not to get paid. He understands the consequences of changing what once was illegal into a legal act. Do you really like our chances at a public auction going against alumni in NYC & LA?Quote:
Originally Posted by sack07
IN ALL THINGS IN LIFE, When money is the sole driver, bad things happen. Many of these 17-18 yr olds don't understand that. And some adults don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by sack07
Glad someone gets itQuote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
I am talking bigger picture than Mississippi State competing (by the way, we are not competing in the current market either). You do not think it ridiculous that another college kid, who could be on academic scholarship, can earn money on his Twitch stream and an athlete cannot because they play a sport? Why is playing a sport an inhibitor?Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
This is not the argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by sack07
Yep, diversion tacticts commonly used when proven wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowbell
Because the value is usually not created by the athlete, but by the university brand. How many players for the Braves or Shuckers have endorsement deals? Or for the Hustle and Birmingham? Probably basically zero for the Braves and Shuckers, and maybe one or two on each G-leauge team?Quote:
Originally Posted by sack07
There are certainly some athletes that have an independent brand that has value apart from their college team, but they are the exception rather than the rule. They have a legitimate beef (although for anybody other than football players, they still have the option of just going pro if the university isn't providing enough value for them). For everybody else, it's just a battle about who can capture the most value the university brand creates.
This^^. And the university having the "brand" is where this all gets dicey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
So nothing will change except now it will be out in the open where everyone can see. IF y'all think paying players is something new, I got some beach front property in Union, Mississippi to sell you.
Keeping it illegal gives schools like STATE a fighting chance to defend their areas. Now schools will be able to drive up to a MS high school player's house with his new Ferrari and contract. Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg-gone-dawgs
Why couldn't Mississippi state keep up? We've been doing so for years and have been doing fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
I don't personally care either way. State is a long shot at winning a NC in football anyway and my thoughts are it will end up buffing out about the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by sack07
That being said if they have marketable talents let them be eligible to go to the NFL at 18 and "market" their talents just as any other college student could decide to do. Now chances are those talents won't be as valuable without the teaching and development that they receive at the college level just as a senior in highschool isn't as valuable to an engineering firm until he has graduated school.
You brought up free market and athletes having the same ability to make money as regular college students. If you want to do it that way fine. But out of what they are being paid they should also be covering the cost of their tuition, books, fee for using and maintaining weight equipment, fee for the trainers they are using, fee for the meal prep they are receiving etc.
You act like they aren't already gaining about a 100K in value simply from stepping foot on campus to play a sport. That is before they actually get a degree that will help them with life after football.
I am all for paying them if they are treated like a regular student and have to cover tuition costs and every other benefit they are currently getting for free. Don't forget what makes their talent marketable at the college level... it is the school they play at, not necessarily themselves.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldawg28
You mean like the NCAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by R2Dawg
Look, if you want to make the argument that this is the beginning of the end of college football as we know it, then do that. But stop trying to make this an issue of morality. There is absolutely nothing immoral about paying football players.
Keeping it "under the table" gave / gives us a chance because boosters have to show a level of discretion despite what others think how high or low that level has to be. I get it, the NCAA has not policed the worst offenders based on their recent rulings like Ole Miss' "LOI Control" meant nothing to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwolf
Keeping it illegal means freshmen will have to rely on Bamer type Cars, this ruling means they can now have Ferarries. Keeping it illegal creates a salary cap so to speak. Why do you want STATE competing with boosters who have 10 X our money with no limits? I wouldn't mind this new ruling if there were caps on the $. I don't think there is one and it looks like a killer for schools like STATE.
I never said I wanted this. I just said that it isn't immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
I actually tend to agree that this is going to be detrimental to college football long term. I think it is going to shine a big spotlight on the lack of parity and unless drastic changes are made to at least keep the illusion of a somewhat level playing field, most people will lose interest.
agreed. but keep in mind, I don't think I discussed the morality of the ruling. Professional sports put salary caps in place for a reason which is to protect parity. These college players produce a TON of money, no doubt and cutting them in would not be immoral IMO. We don't need to be in bidding wars for local 4-5 Star Talent from teams like Syracuse because they are allowed to publicly promise tons of almost unlimited money on the T.V. Screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwolf
I don't see where you did either....which is why I quoted R2Dawg in my initial post.Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
The only good to come out of this is this will be the end to the NCAA. I see a storm coming and the big 6 will form their own alliance and rules.