🏈 A Brief Breakdown...Well, Not So Brief, About What's Coming on HBO Tonight...

[srollins]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that students aren't employees of their respective universities, nor are they "labor." No matter how much anyone wants to force-feed parallels and comparisons, it just isn't true. Further, your assessment of 5.5% fails to include the other student-athletes and their entire programs that the $54 million in football revenues support outside of football. Lastly, the benefit to the student isn't just in cost of tuition which you estimate to be $35k. It is also in the increase in salaries one can expect to receive as an individual with a college education and the access to certain career fields provided by that degree that aren't available to those without a degree - of course, this doesn't even consider pro sports (and the access big-time college programs give these athletes to those pro teams). That increased salary base, plus raises, promotions, job movement, etc. which all experience x% increases from a higher base add up to 100s of thousands of dollars if not more over a lifetime. If a student-athlete chooses to major in basket-weaving instead of engineering or some other high-paying field (some football players do successfully major in engineering or other difficult but high-paying fields), that's their mistake. If the student-athlete chooses to forego senior year and graduation to try the pros and they fail, it's their fault.

I think the whole management/labor argument is just way off-base. It's a non-starter because it just isn't true, but it also a flawed comparison. Student-athletes choose where they go to college, they choose what to major in, and they choose whether to cut their education short to try the pros. If they go to a college that pressures them to major in zeppelin-watching or grass-mowing, then they should transfer to a college that will support their goals. It is incumbent upon the student-athlete and their family to keep in mind that their athletic scholarship is giving them access to a "free" education first and foremost and that precious few actually make it to the pro level. I realize they are just teenagers, but too many of them - and their families - get blinded by the delusion of big $$$$ too quickly.

:word:

 

[Hoos4Tide]

Okay, one of my biggest problems with these arguments is this, though: So, you win, we're gonna pay Trent Richardson X amount, we're gonna pay Hasean Clinton-Dix, what? X/2? Then pay redshirt freshman kicker, what, X/10? So now we are literally paying players by how much output they produce. And we think it's fair right?

Well, I'm a high school senior with a 4.0 GPA, a 36 on my ACT, I started 3 non profits in the last four years and I'm an Eagle Scout, so the University is going to offer me a full ride scholarship... that's fair, I presume... But, shouldn't I get paid now too? I mean, just by my being here I increased the University's median matriculation ACT by .3, I am an ASSET to the University-- which, do remember, is still an ACADEMIC INSTITUTION. They value my being here and b/c I'm here the business school is better and there is more demand to get in the University. So I should be paid? Right? I mean, it's only fair...

So, now I'm a pitcher on the softball team. I won the SEC's most valuable player last year and I'm going to be on the Olympic team in a few years, representing Alabama. Oh, and we're ranked in the top 5 in the nation. We're damn good. Yet, my sport actually loses money for the school. Our net profit as a softball organization is negative. But, if Trent is being paid, I should be paid... And so should the swimmers, and the gymnasts-- all the athletes that make their respective teams among the best in the nation.

So, what I'm saying is, Universities attract students for a variety of reasons, and honestly, there's more to the school's balance sheet than just the football team's revenue and expenses. The profit that the football team makes goes back into every aspect of the university, to the softball team, to renovations of the stadiums, to cleaning the stadiums, to scholarships. It's not like the evil hamster forms of Nick Saban and Mal Moore are just gobbling up this massive amount of revenue, it goes back to the University-- we should be thankful as supporters of the University of Alabama that our football team brings in so much b/c that "so much" goes back to making the SCHOOL better as a whole! Don't forget that the University is not just an NFL franchise-- it's not just one vertical line, it's a web of connections and people and departments. So, 1. You can't pay football players b/c frankly many of them don't deserve it as much pay as the Rhodes Scholar business student, and 2. the money the football team does make isn't just sitting there being used to buy new Corvettes by the heads of the University...

 

[foshman]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that students aren't employees of their respective universities, nor are they "labor." No matter how much anyone wants to force-feed parallels and comparisons, it just isn't true. Further, your assessment of 5.5% fails to include the other student-athletes and their entire programs that the $54 million in football revenues support outside of football. Lastly, the benefit to the student isn't just in cost of tuition which you estimate to be $35k. It is also in the increase in salaries one can expect to receive as an individual with a college education and the access to certain career fields provided by that degree that aren't available to those without a degree - of course, this doesn't even consider pro sports (and the access big-time college programs give these athletes to those pro teams). That increased salary base, plus raises, promotions, job movement, etc. which all experience x% increases from a higher base add up to 100s of thousands of dollars if not more over a lifetime. If a student-athlete chooses to major in basket-weaving instead of engineering or some other high-paying field (some football players do successfully major in engineering or other difficult but high-paying fields), that's their mistake. If the student-athlete chooses to forego senior year and graduation to try the pros and they fail, it's their fault.

I think the whole management/labor argument is just way off-base. It's a non-starter because it just isn't true, but it also a flawed comparison. Student-athletes choose where they go to college, they choose what to major in, and they choose whether to cut their education short to try the pros. If they go to a college that pressures them to major in zeppelin-watching or grass-mowing, then they should transfer to a college that will support their goals. It is incumbent upon the student-athlete and their family to keep in mind that their athletic scholarship is giving them access to a "free" education first and foremost and that precious few actually make it to the pro level. I realize they are just teenagers, but too many of them - and their families - get blinded by the delusion of big $$$$ too quickly.

I disagree with everything you typed. But I'm not going to get into it point by point tonight. Except that I sort of am.....

Alabam's athletic department revenues were around $125-130 million for that year. The football program made up less than half (around 40%.) Does Alabama offer more than 212.5 athletic scholarships in a year? If not then my numbers more than account for the difference.

The comparison is valid because major college football is a business. It is designed to make money. It makes money by having the athletes play a sport. Thus athletes=labor. That they are not official employees or compensated as such strengthens my argument.

All of the future earning potential stuff is superfluous. Each university sells those same services to students for a price. That price is covered by the scholarship. Mostly. In no other circumstance do the universities profit off of their students work.

Try this analogy. If you were a math major on an academic scholarship and you solved the Beal Conjecture should the university be able to exclusively profit off of your performance without giving you any compensation due to your status as a scholarship holder? (as a note a solution or counter to the Beal Conjecture carries an award of 100K.) If you knew they would before you signed there and had offers to go to schools that wouldn't how would that effect your decision?

Ultimately my point is this. The NCAA athletic system was set up before anyone knew or could have known how much of a money maker it would be. It's by laws are now antiquated based on the money it makes. When that much money is in play and a large percentage of the people responsible for making that money are getting short changed with respect to everyone else there are going to be problems.

It will never be a fair split. Never. I doubt any group of people would ever be able to agree on what a fair split is. It seems like the NCAA and its member institutions could do more though and that if they did more they might have fewer headaches. Closing the scholarship gaps, setting aside some money from merchandising sales in escrow accounts to be paid upon graduation, and allowing modest stipends would remove a lot of the temptation at a very small price. It would at least be more equitable.

 

[LBS]

We all have heard about the occasional college doing away with its football program, and it is almost alway linked to the "Title IX" requirement that an athletic department have equal benefits (i.e. same number of scharships athletic department wide). The point being that the Feds don't get wrapped around the axle about which sport a person plays, implying that they are all the same.

QUESTION: Can having to pay every student athlete the same thing, regardless of sport, be avoided under Title IX Federal Law?

-----
Title XV of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law, enacted on June 23, 1972, that amended Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2002 it was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author Congresswoman Mink, but is most commonly known simply as Title IX. The law states that

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
—United States Code Section 20, <CITE><SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP></CITE>
<CITE><SUP></SUP></CITE>
<CITE><SUP></SUP></CITE>
<CITE></CITE>
​

 

['65 Cobra]

I disagree with everything you typed. But I'm not going to get into it point by point tonight. Except that I sort of am.....

Alabam's athletic department revenues were around $125-130 million for that year. The football program made up less than half (around 40%.) Does Alabama offer more than 212.5 athletic scholarships in a year? If not then my numbers more than account for the difference.

The comparison is valid because major college football is a business. It is designed to make money. It makes money by having the athletes play a sport. Thus athletes=labor. That they are not official employees or compensated as such strengthens my argument.

All of the future earning potential stuff is superfluous. Each university sells those same services to students for a price. That price is covered by the scholarship. Mostly. In no other circumstance do the universities profit off of their students work.

Try this analogy. If you were a math major on an academic scholarship and you solved the Beal Conjecture should the university be able to exclusively profit off of your performance without giving you any compensation due to your status as a scholarship holder? (as a note a solution or counter to the Beal Conjecture carries an award of 100K.) If you knew they would before you signed there and had offers to go to schools that wouldn't how would that effect your decision?

Ultimately my point is this. The NCAA athletic system was set up before anyone knew or could have known how much of a money maker it would be. It's by laws are now antiquated based on the money it makes. When that much money is in play and a large percentage of the people responsible for making that money are getting short changed with respect to everyone else there are going to be problems.

It will never be a fair split. Never. I doubt any group of people would ever be able to agree on what a fair split is. It seems like the NCAA and its member institutions could do more though and that if they did more they might have fewer headaches. Closing the scholarship gaps, setting aside some money from merchandising sales in escrow accounts to be paid upon graduation, and allowing modest stipends would remove a lot of the temptation at a very small price. It would at least be more equitable.

You disagree with everything I said?! How sad. Ah well... Here goes:

On Revenue and profit sharing - This was a fundamental point for both of us, you just neglected to recognize a basic but important point: there is a huge difference between gross revenue and net profit/loss. This has a direct effect on how a football program can effectively pay for other programs. For 2009 - the last year that ALL data is available - Alabama reported gross athletic department revenues of $103.9MM (million); the football program had gross revenues of $64.6MM. The football program also had a NET PROFIT of $38.16MM, while the total athletic department profit was only $4.1MM. That means the rest of the athletic program had a compostie NET LOSS of $34.06MM. I realize that a couple of other sports are not net losers, but their net gains are negligible relative to football. Therefore, the football program essentially covers all other sports that operate at a loss. So, on your point of "labor" sharing the profit: If the football players were to share the profit, do the players of the other sports have to reciprically cover the losses? Further, the vast majority of D-1 schools have a net loss. How do you profit share at those schools where there is no profit? Raise the tuition on the other kids?

On Players as "Labor" - Student athletes, by definition and regulation, are not employees. Period. Just the facts. Therefore, they are not labor; no payroll, no payroll tax, no Social Security, no Medicare, no withholding, etc. It may be fashionable to try to paint the "labor" picture to dramatize the point, but the simple facts are just that - simple facts. Students are not employees.

On Future Earnings/Profiting off of Students - While I'm sure your reference to the Beale Conjecture is highly impressive to mathematicians, it is also a highly impractical example regarding the original point. You essentially said originally that only athletes generate revenue for a University (let's not get into the fact that MOST athletes LOSE money for a school considering the facts above). How about a more practical example than your Beale Conjecture? Let's say I am in chemical engineering and I just developed a new catalyst that solves the energy problem. Do you think the school will profit from that? Damn right it will; because it owns the IP and it will patent it and sell it. Do you think such a school stands to get more grants and government contracts as a result? Damn right. Are athletes the only ones that generate revenue? Absolutely not. AND for the vast majority of schools that don't make Alabama football money, those royalties, grants, and contracts are a MAJOR part of their revenues. (Was your Beale Conjecture solved in a University classroom, using University materials; computers, chalkboard, etc.? Guess who owns that solution?)

Also, in your first post, you stated that the value of a football player's scholarship was $35k which including all players only represented 5.5% of football revenues. But my point was that there is alot more to it than that $35k. You have to consider exposure, the value of the degree, access to employers (including the NFL) that a person would not otherwise have, etc. Future earnings are absolutely relevant: what if my Dad is not a rich genius mathematician like Foshman and I can't afford to go to college without that scholarship? My future earnings potential statistically are significantly reduced.

"major college football is a business. It is designed to make money" - Again, facts are facts. The vast majority of D-1 schools LOSE money on football. Why do they keep playing? Because they would lose more by way of reduced exposure for advertising $$$ and reduced demand for enrollment without a major football program.

The NCAA Set-up and Antiquated By-Laws - I completely agree that the current system was set up long before anyone could even anticipate the obsene amount of money the machine would generate. I also agree that the current by-laws and all associated regulations are generally antiquated and, on top of that, enforced inequitably. My main point behind all those numbers is that changing the amateur status not only doesn't solve anything, it makes it worse. With most schools losing money on athletics and most sports losing money individually, how do you fairly compensate equitably across the board? You mentioned fairness in your original post. Is it fair to pay the captain of the curling team less than the star running back? For that matter is it fair to raise tuition on all the other students to pay all the athletes at those schools where sports lose money? For that matter, is it fair to pay athletes on scholarship and not students paying their own way?

Look, Fosh, I admit, I enjoy a healthy debate; I am not completely oblivious or insensitive to your side of the issue. But I do think that keeping student athletes amateurs and not treating them any more specially than the kid that had to borrow $50k to get his degree is really important. To do otherwise is going to open up a serious can of worms that will be difficult to step back from. Today's student athlete needs to take more responsibility for appreciating the gift/opportunity a football scholarship is. Major in something substantial and get the degree.

 

[UAgrad93]

You disagree with everything I said?! How sad. Ah well... Here goes:

On Revenue and profit sharing - This was a fundamental point for both of us, you just neglected to recognize a basic but important point: there is a huge difference between gross revenue and net profit/loss. This has a direct effect on how a football program can effectively pay for other programs. For 2009 - the last year that ALL data is available - Alabama reported gross athletic department revenues of $103.9MM (million); the football program had gross revenues of $64.6MM. The football program also had a NET PROFIT of $38.16MM, while the total athletic department profit was only $4.1MM. That means the rest of the athletic program had a compostie NET LOSS of $34.06MM. I realize that a couple of other sports are not net losers, but their net gains are negligible relative to football. Therefore, the football program essentially covers all other sports that operate at a loss. So, on your point of "labor" sharing the profit: If the football players were to share the profit, do the players of the other sports have to reciprically cover the losses? Further, the vast majority of D-1 schools have a net loss. How do you profit share at those schools where there is no profit? Raise the tuition on the other kids?

On Players as "Labor" - Student athletes, by definition and regulation, are not employees. Period. Just the facts. Therefore, they are not labor; no payroll, no payroll tax, no Social Security, no Medicare, no withholding, etc. It may be fashionable to try to paint the "labor" picture to dramatize the point, but the simple facts are just that - simple facts. Students are not employees.

On Future Earnings/Profiting off of Students - While I'm sure your reference to the Beale Conjecture is highly impressive to mathematicians, it is also a highly impractical example regarding the original point. You essentially said originally that only athletes generate revenue for a University (let's not get into the fact that MOST athletes LOSE money for a school considering the facts above). How about a more practical example than your Beale Conjecture? Let's say I am in chemical engineering and I just developed a new catalyst that solves the energy problem. Do you think the school will profit from that? Damn right it will; because it owns the IP and it will patent it and sell it. Do you think such a school stands to get more grants and government contracts as a result? Damn right. Are athletes the only ones that generate revenue? Absolutely not. AND for the vast majority of schools that don't make Alabama football money, those royalties, grants, and contracts are a MAJOR part of their revenues. (Was your Beale Conjecture solved in a University classroom, using University materials; computers, chalkboard, etc.? Guess who owns that solution?)

Also, in your first post, you stated that the value of a football player's scholarship was $35k which including all players only represented 5.5% of football revenues. But my point was that there is alot more to it than that $35k. You have to consider exposure, the value of the degree, access to employers (including the NFL) that a person would not otherwise have, etc. Future earnings are absolutely relevant: what if my Dad is not a rich genius mathematician like Foshman and I can't afford to go to college without that scholarship? My future earnings potential statistically are significantly reduced.

"major college football is a business. It is designed to make money" - Again, facts are facts. The vast majority of D-1 schools LOSE money on football. Why do they keep playing? Because they would lose more by way of reduced exposure for advertising $$$ and reduced demand for enrollment without a major football program.

The NCAA Set-up and Antiquated By-Laws - I completely agree that the current system was set up long before anyone could even anticipate the obsene amount of money the machine would generate. I also agree that the current by-laws and all associated regulations are generally antiquated and, on top of that, enforced inequitably. My main point behind all those numbers is that changing the amateur status not only doesn't solve anything, it makes it worse. With most schools losing money on athletics and most sports losing money individually, how do you fairly compensate equitably across the board? You mentioned fairness in your original post. Is it fair to pay the captain of the curling team less than the star running back? For that matter is it fair to raise tuition on all the other students to pay all the athletes at those schools where sports lose money? For that matter, is it fair to pay athletes on scholarship and not students paying their own way?

Look, Fosh, I admit, I enjoy a healthy debate; I am not completely oblivious or insensitive to your side of the issue. But I do think that keeping student athletes amateurs and not treating them any more specially than the kid that had to borrow $50k to get his degree is really important. To do otherwise is going to open up a serious can of worms that will be difficult to step back from. Today's student athlete needs to take more responsibility for appreciating the gift/opportunity a football scholarship is. Major in something substantial and get the degree.

Cobra, I hope you don't mind if I cleared your post up a little. This is what it is all about. Take advantage of the scholarship that is given and get a degree that you will use. Everyone isn't going to play in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. At some point in our ALL of our lifetimes, we have all said to ourselves, "Hey, I can't play forever! I have to go out and get a job!" I was a walk on here and had to look in that mirror. I realized that I wouldn't be in the NFL and that I had to get that degree. When I left football, my grades honestly went up as I increased my course load.
All one has to do is go into any high school close to you and look at what generates the money for these schools. It was, is, and always will be football. It will cover all of the "other" sports such as softball, baseball in most cases, basketball, golf, track, tennis, etc. I have coached at both a 2A school here in state and a 5A school here in state. Regardless of how well football did in wins and losses didn't matter. The sport generated the revenue for most all of the sports. The sports like basketball and baseball depended solely on how well the season went. Paying athletes some type of stipend would be nice, but would likely never happen.

 

[LBS]

WARNING: "Baiting" question to follow.

The money to start paying the players, where does it come from?

 

[LBS]

If getting paid is such an issue, why not do as Eric Swann did. He blew off college and the path to the NFL which they pay for, and instead lugged pipes all day and played Semi-Pro ball in the night. Look where that got him. First Rounder!

---
Eric Jerrod Swann (born August 16, 1970 in Pinehurst, North Carolina) is a former professional American football player who was selected by the Phoenix Cardinals in the 1st round (6th overall) of the 1991 NFL Draft. A 6'5", 317 lbs. defensive tackle, Swann never attended college and was actually drafted from a semi-pro football team called the Bay State Titans located in Lynn, Massachusetts.

 

[Southern Bama]

Student athletes have NO business being paid. Even if for arguements sake they were paid "x" amount of dollars..whats to stop another university or booster from sweetening the deal to sway a decision on where to play ? There is no end to it. These athletes are getting a free ride to play a game and are basically superstars to some people.....AND imagine the chicks they will have access to :shock: C'mon.........they are having some fun....plenty of benefits already....no need for the $$.

 

[foshman]

You disagree with everything I said?! How sad. Ah well... Here goes:

On Revenue and profit sharing - This was a fundamental point for both of us, you just neglected to recognize a basic but important point: there is a huge difference between gross revenue and net profit/loss. This has a direct effect on how a football program can effectively pay for other programs. For 2009 - the last year that ALL data is available - Alabama reported gross athletic department revenues of $103.9MM (million); the football program had gross revenues of $64.6MM. The football program also had a NET PROFIT of $38.16MM, while the total athletic department profit was only $4.1MM. That means the rest of the athletic program had a compostie NET LOSS of $34.06MM. I realize that a couple of other sports are not net losers, but their net gains are negligible relative to football. Therefore, the football program essentially covers all other sports that operate at a loss. So, on your point of "labor" sharing the profit: If the football players were to share the profit, do the players of the other sports have to reciprically cover the losses? Further, the vast majority of D-1 schools have a net loss. How do you profit share at those schools where there is no profit? Raise the tuition on the other kids?

I think in my original post I said that any form of compensation would have to come from the NCAA. Otherwise there would be a competitive disadvantage. There is no reason that The NCAA can't collect a % of revenues, or profits, from all athletic programs and redistribute the money equally amongst all student athletes. You also seem to ignore that I am not calling for large salaries. I'm simply suggesting modest increases in the current benefits students get, that include a very modest stipend for living expenses. The kind that is not uncommon in academic or merit scholarships. It's the responsibility of the University to manage the money they make. When they don't it isn't a valid argument to short change others. (Although that happens frequently, and not just with colleges.)

On Players as "Labor" - Student athletes, by definition and regulation, are not employees. Period. Just the facts. Therefore, they are not labor; no payroll, no payroll tax, no Social Security, no Medicare, no withholding, etc. It may be fashionable to try to paint the "labor" picture to dramatize the point, but the simple facts are just that - simple facts. Students are not employees.

Are you insinuating that you must be an employee in order to perform beneficial labor? Were slaves employees? Were POW's who were forced to work in Japanese prison camps considered employees? Do volunteers never do labor, by definition? Was the week I spent helping build a church for reformed prisoners in Kentucky not labor? It felt like labor.

I'm saying that they "do labor" by virtue of performing a physical act that creates profits for the universities they attend. It seems like your argument is one of legal definitions. I think we are arguing semantics on this point.

On Future Earnings/Profiting off of Students - While I'm sure your reference to the Beale Conjecture is highly impressive to mathematicians, it is also a highly impractical example regarding the original point. You essentially said originally that only athletes generate revenue for a University (let's not get into the fact that MOST athletes LOSE money for a school considering the facts above). How about a more practical example than your Beale Conjecture? Let's say I am in chemical engineering and I just developed a new catalyst that solves the energy problem. Do you think the school will profit from that? Damn right it will; because it owns the IP and it will patent it and sell it. Do you think such a school stands to get more grants and government contracts as a result? Damn right. Are athletes the only ones that generate revenue? Absolutely not. AND for the vast majority of schools that don't make Alabama football money, those royalties, grants, and contracts are a MAJOR part of their revenues. (Was your Beale Conjecture solved in a University classroom, using University materials; computers, chalkboard, etc.? Guess who owns that solution?)

Also, in your first post, you stated that the value of a football player's scholarship was $35k which including all players only represented 5.5% of football revenues. But my point was that there is alot more to it than that $35k. You have to consider exposure, the value of the degree, access to employers (including the NFL) that a person would not otherwise have, etc. Future earnings are absolutely relevant: what if my Dad is not a rich genius mathematician like Foshman and I can't afford to go to college without that scholarship? My future earnings potential statistically are significantly reduced.

Implied benefits are incalculable. They can be guessed at and with the exception of those athletes who make it big, or perhaps a theater major or music major who makes it big- there is no difference between the benefits gained by the student athlete on scholarship versus the student that is on academic scholarship versus the student who pays his own way. Therefore those benefits are associated with the degree.....for which the price is already set at tuition and fees.

As for the intellectual property debate....In almost all of the cases I know about the University takes a sizable percentage of the total money off the top and the rest is left with the individual. In some cases copyright laws dictate who has the intellectual property but the courts are not always consistent in their interpretations of those laws. The guy that invented gatorade kept most of the money. UF got around 20-25% I think. I seriously doubt they would take any money that was an award however.

Also I am genius level in many things other than Math.....you should see me with the ladies.

"major college football is a business. It is designed to make money" - Again, facts are facts. The vast majority of D-1 schools LOSE money on football. Why do they keep playing? Because they would lose more by way of reduced exposure for advertising $$$ and reduced demand for enrollment without a major football program.

The NCAA Set-up and Antiquated By-Laws - I completely agree that the current system was set up long before anyone could even anticipate the obsene amount of money the machine would generate. I also agree that the current by-laws and all associated regulations are generally antiquated and, on top of that, enforced inequitably. My main point behind all those numbers is that changing the amateur status not only doesn't solve anything, it makes it worse. With most schools losing money on athletics and most sports losing money individually, how do you fairly compensate equitably across the board? You mentioned fairness in your original post. Is it fair to pay the captain of the curling team less than the star running back? For that matter is it fair to raise tuition on all the other students to pay all the athletes at those schools where sports lose money? For that matter, is it fair to pay athletes on scholarship and not students paying their own way?

Why is increasing the scholarship value to include a cost of living stipend and closing a few loopholes in the scholarship process tantamount to professionalizing college athletics? There will never be an even split. Ever. There can be a solution that recognizes the shortcomings of the current system, takes a pragmatic approach to solving a few real world issues, and makes life easier on the people that are taking the most risk physically.

As for colleges losing money, I am an economic Darwinist. If you can't operate profitably in a "free market" you shouldn't be operating.

Look, Fosh, I admit, I enjoy a healthy debate; I am not completely oblivious or insensitive to your side of the issue. But I do think that keeping student athletes amateurs and not treating them any more specially than the kid that had to borrow $50k to get his degree is really important. To do otherwise is going to open up a serious can of worms that will be difficult to step back from. Today's student athlete needs to take more responsibility for appreciating the gift/opportunity a football scholarship is. Major in something substantial and get the degree.

The student that has to go into debt is allowed to have a job. The student that go's into debt typically does not help the university make many many millions of dollars.

Keep them amateurs. Hell give them money in the form of a per diem instead of salary or stipend. Most of our Olympic teams are composed of amateurs and they get paid to train.

There is already a can of worms open. They system that we have now is worth preserving, but not without modifications. I believe change is needed. I think it will help the game.

I do agree with your last point. Athletes should recognize the potential benefits of being in college. On the other hand I also think Universities, athletic departments, and coaches should be held accountable for who they recruit. It's hard for me to blame a kid that has no business being in college for not taking being in college seriously. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was mandated that student athletes be admitted to a University before they are allowed to sign a scholarship, although that would also probably get ugly quick.

We both enjoy a healthy debate and just because I disagree with you completely doesn't mean that I don't also see your points as being legitimate. They are legitimate.

 

[srollins]

Slaves had no choice whether or not to perform labor, student athletes CHOOSE to perform "labor" in return for the scholarships and all that comes with it. To make the comparison at all is unfortunate.

In fact, to characterize what student athletes do as "labor" is another unfortunate description. I believe that most (nearly all) student athletes perform because they truly enjoy their sport and would rather perform than not to. I mean really, if it was "labor" do you think guys would try so hard to get back in games they have been taken out of if its just "labor?"

 

[foshman]

Slaves had no choice whether or not to perform labor, student athletes CHOOSE to perform "labor" in return for the scholarships and all that comes with it. To make the comparison at all is unfortunate.

In fact, to characterize what student athletes do as "labor" is another unfortunate description. I believe that most (nearly all) student athletes perform because they truly enjoy their sport and would rather perform than not to. I mean really, if it was "labor" do you think guys would try so hard to get back in games they have been taken out of if its just "labor?"

I'm clearly not implying that athletes are slaves. I'm asking a clarifying question to his assertion that those who do labor are by definition employees.

As for what is and is not labor

la·bor

  <noscript><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/L00/L0004700" target="_blank">

</noscript>/ˈleɪ

bər/ Show Spelled[ley-ber] Show IPA
–noun 1. productive activity, especially for the sake of economic gain.

2. the body of persons engaged in such activity, especially those working for wages.

3. this body of persons considered as a class ( distinguished from management and capital).
4. physical or mental work, especially of a hard or fatiguing kind; toil.

5. a job or task done or to be done.

I feel like all 5 are applicable to this situation.

 

[srollins]

I feel like you're missing my main point. Student athletes CHOOSE to perform because they love the competition of the game. If it was a money thing, would unpaid athletes compete so hard for playing time that they will not be paid for? I think the answer is a clear - no.

The idea of athletes in big-time football programs getting paid to make the whole thing more "fair" is a modern argument that has grown from the game turning into such a huge financial windfall for some schools, the NCAA, the bowl commissions, etc. Nobody cared about "paying" football players for helping "earn" all of that money until the modern era created such a financial following for winning programs. I feel like the idea is most palatable to people sympathetic to the entitlement age we live in.

 

[Big_Fan]

This discussion is really beyond absurd.

Every year countless numbers of non-athletes graduate with six figure debt. Scholarship athletes have the opportunity to use their talent to avoid debt and increase their lifetime earnings potential by massive amounts.

Where does it end?

College band members invest significant time. They practice for weeks in the summer at all-day camps, and for several hours almost every day. They perform at half-time on Saturdays, not to mention at all kinds of functions and parades and such. They are (sometimes) paid a very small per diem for away games, however it is generally only enough to cover meals. In addition to that, band is a CLASS that they must pay tuition to be a part of. That's right...marching band students PAY to be in the band. The best of the best are awarded scholarships - just like the football players are, however they also are required to participate in additional performance ensembles such as basketball jazz band and such. Can you imagine a football game without the band? Homecoming without the band? I say that all non-scholarship band members should be paid a salary equal to the value of a full-ride scholarship for their participation...after all, the practice load of a member of the marching band makes it almost impossible to have a job of any kind during the semester (unless you do without sleep).

but but but...you say...they don't work as hard or generate as much revenue... Which is it? The difficulty of what they do or the revenue they bring in? If you want to argue the difficulty then you have to figure what is a fair wage for what amounts to manual labor and then pay the players based on what they do individually. If you consider them employees and argue the profits they generate, that doesn't work either. Walmart makes billions on the backs of employees who receive a salary that - as a percentage - would not equal what a football player receives. A single Walmart store brings in between $75k-$350k per day. An average cashier makes $12,500 per year. If they get enough hours to qualify for insurance, that costs them $80 per week.

I did both band and football, and I can tell you that football was harder, but after an all-day bandcamp practicing on blacktop for 10 hours and carrying a tuba around, I was still stinking tired. I brought joy to countless thousands...I should have been paid for it.

Football players don't have to play football. It is a choice. They don't have to accept a scholarship. They can play semi-pro and enter the draft as someone else said.

The fact is, college athletes not only get a full-ride, they get instruction from highly trained professionals, access to the best equipment and sports medicine and nutrition. They are placed on pedestals and enjoy the adoration of massive numbers of fans...and they get to attend college and play a game that presumably, they enjoy playing.

Students majoring in Education have a better argument for being paid when they do their practicum, than athletes have for being paid to play football.

...and I mentioned nothing about the disparity between upper and lower division schools, D1AA, D2, and non-scholarship programs that compete in D1 like the pioneer conference - Kerwin Bell's FCS non-scholarship Jacksonville University team went 10-1 in 2010. They recruit well with the no scholarship handicap...but pay for play would eliminate them (and a lot of other schools) from even fielding a football team.

All that said, it is pretty obvious that a barner is going to be for paying the players because they already do. A salary structure would probably save barner boosters countless thousands.

 

[srollins]

Every year countless numbers of non-athletes graduate with six figure debt. Scholarship athletes have the opportunity to use their talent to avoid debt and increase their lifetime earnings potential by massive amounts. Where does it end?

Excellent point.

 

[foshman]

This discussion is really beyond absurd.

Every year countless numbers of non-athletes graduate with six figure debt. Scholarship athletes have the opportunity to use their talent to avoid debt and increase their lifetime earnings potential by massive amounts.

Where does it end?

College band members invest significant time. They practice for weeks in the summer at all-day camps, and for several hours almost every day. They perform at half-time on Saturdays, not to mention at all kinds of functions and parades and such. They are (sometimes) paid a very small per diem for away games, however it is generally only enough to cover meals. In addition to that, band is a CLASS that they must pay tuition to be a part of. That's right...marching band students PAY to be in the band. The best of the best are awarded scholarships - just like the football players are, however they also are required to participate in additional performance ensembles such as basketball jazz band and such. Can you imagine a football game without the band? Homecoming without the band? I say that all non-scholarship band members should be paid a salary equal to the value of a full-ride scholarship for their participation...after all, the practice load of a member of the marching band makes it almost impossible to have a job of any kind during the semester (unless you do without sleep).

but but but...you say...they don't work as hard or generate as much revenue... Which is it? The difficulty of what they do or the revenue they bring in? If you want to argue the difficulty then you have to figure what is a fair wage for what amounts to manual labor and then pay the players based on what they do individually. If you consider them employees and argue the profits they generate, that doesn't work either. Walmart makes billions on the backs of employees who receive a salary that - as a percentage - would not equal what a football player receives. A single Walmart store brings in between $75k-$350k per day. An average cashier makes $12,500 per year. If they get enough hours to qualify for insurance, that costs them $80 per week.

I did both band and football, and I can tell you that football was harder, but after an all-day bandcamp practicing on blacktop for 10 hours and carrying a tuba around, I was still stinking tired. I brought joy to countless thousands...I should have been paid for it.

Football players don't have to play football. It is a choice. They don't have to accept a scholarship. They can play semi-pro and enter the draft as someone else said.

The fact is, college athletes not only get a full-ride, they get instruction from highly trained professionals, access to the best equipment and sports medicine and nutrition. They are placed on pedestals and enjoy the adoration of massive numbers of fans...and they get to attend college and play a game that presumably, they enjoy playing.

Students majoring in Education have a better argument for being paid when they do their practicum, than athletes have for being paid to play football.

...and I mentioned nothing about the disparity between upper and lower division schools, D1AA, D2, and non-scholarship programs that compete in D1 like the pioneer conference - Kerwin Bell's FCS non-scholarship Jacksonville University team went 10-1 in 2010. They recruit well with the no scholarship handicap...but pay for play would eliminate them (and a lot of other schools) from even fielding a football team.

All that said, it is pretty obvious that a barner is going to be for paying the players because they already do. A salary structure would probably save barner boosters countless thousands.

1. Band members do not generate 10's of millions of dollars a year for their school.
2. Band members are allowed to have jobs to make some money while in school.
3. If a band member is taken out to dinner by a prospective future employee he maintains his membership in band and his scholarship.
4. This thread has nothing to do with DIII. Since they don't offer athletic scholarships I can't see how modifications to the athletic scholarship rules would affect them.

Why is the thought of closing scholarship gaps and adding a stipend to the total of maybe $3K per year per student athlete so outrageous? Why not remove the temptation to take money and risk their eligibility from otherwise honest kids? Why can I not have an informed discussion without some jackass calling me a barner?

and to your last point

Alabama has paid athletes as frequently as Auburn. You're kidding yourself if you think they aren't still. As I would be if I thought Auburn weren't. I'm not saying either coaching staff or university is complicit but let's not act like the programs in Tuscaloosa and Auburn are above playing the same game everyone else does. That would be absurd.

 

[srollins]

sigh.

I thought you were willing to see points that differ from yours when they are plain to see.

 

[Duder]

Why is the thought of closing scholarship gaps and adding a stipend to the total of maybe $3K per year per student athlete so outrageous? Why not remove the temptation to take money and risk their eligibility from otherwise honest kids? Why can I not have an informed discussion without some jackass calling me a barner?

and to your last point

Alabama has paid athletes as frequently as Auburn. You're kidding yourself if you think they aren't still. As I would be if I thought Auburn weren't. I'm not saying either coaching staff or university is complicit but let's not act like the programs in Tuscaloosa and Auburn are above playing the same game everyone else does. That would be absurd.

Save your energy and learn to love the ignore feature.

Yes, both programs do it. I know for a fact Takeo Spikes got a new truck at Auburn from a booster. I also know for a fact that Rolando McClain got s car from a booster at Alabama. I use a dated AU reference only because it was the last one I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Say what you will about my opinion, I had the same opinion when Bama was under the watchful eye of the NCAA. I'm sure you guys are ignoring the fact that Saban was at LSU when McClover claims he took money from them as well

Am I saying he's completely lying? No--I have no idea what happened with him. Junior Rosegreen claims to know a lot and has said McClover is a liar. Do I think he's embellishing? Hell yes I do. Regardless of whether Rosegreen's statement that HBO paid McClover 20k (Stanley supposedly told him), the exposure is obviously going to generate revenue for his camps. I will not accept the portrayal of him as a victim. It is his fault that he's 26, unemployed and uneducated. Coaches told him to stay, he chose not to. If he'd truly learned from his "mistakes", why has he not returned to school? Auburn has a program that allows all former scholarship athletes to return and obtain a degree for free. The school covers tuition and books. If he's learned and wishes he could make a mends, why not go to school instead of HBO?

 

[Tideandtrue8365]

Save your energy and learn to love the ignore feature.

Yes, both programs do it. I know for a fact Takeo Spikes got a new truck at Auburn from a booster. I also know for a fact that Rolando McClain got s car from a booster at Alabama. I use a dated AU reference only because it was the last one I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Say what you will about my opinion, I had the same opinion when Bama was under the watchful eye of the NCAA. I'm sure you guys are ignoring the fact that Saban was at LSU when McClover claims he took money from them as well

Am I saying he's completely lying? No--I have no idea what happened with him. Junior Rosegreen claims to know a lot and has said McClover is a liar. Do I think he's embellishing? Hell yes I do. Regardless of whether Rosegreen's statement that HBO paid McClover 20k (Stanley supposedly told him), the exposure is obviously going to generate revenue for his camps. I will not accept the portrayal of him as a victim. It is his fault that he's 26, unemployed and uneducated. Coaches told him to stay, he chose not to. If he'd truly learned from his "mistakes", why has he not returned to school? Auburn has a program that allows all former scholarship athletes to return and obtain a degree for free. The school covers tuition and books. If he's learned and wishes he could make a mends, why not go to school instead of HBO?

:rofl:....And here we go again...no basis for saying McClain got a car. Just trying to deflect the attention and ignore the obvious. Time will prove what is more than likely there.

 

[Big_Fan]

:rofl:....And here we go again...no basis for saying McClain got a car. Just trying to deflect the attention and ignore the obvious. Time will prove what is more than likely there.

...and here we are, back to the reason I can't stomach barners and utters on Bama message boards. If a Bama poster said that exact thing on any of a plethora of barner sites, he would be immediately banned without warning...for that matter, many are banned for far, far less. When it is their turn to act civil, they don't recognize that this is not their house. The McClain accusation was stupid. To the best of my recollection, barners made that accusation back then but it was proven that he drove an 80's model Chevrolet caprice with rusty quarter panels. I seem to recall that was what he was driving when he hit a student in 2008.

As for the arguments against Band members being paid, barner really seems to be intellectually challenged. The point flew so far over his head as to be in orbit. The amount of money brought in by the band or football team is irrelevant. The only thing I could agree to is licensing rights for the use of their images after they graduate vis-a-vis the Prothro video.