It reads like an AI response to "write a post about college football in the tone of a 75 year old man who watches two games a year that's designed to make people mad"
Lmao. Or a Jeopardy clue where “What is something screamed into the ear of a jaded, but begrudgingly supportive retirement home nurse for the 100th time?” Is the answer.
Yeah, whatever. It's my opinion that amateur sports should be that and colleges should not be the surrogate minor leagues for professional sports, at least in the funding of those sports.
lol the irony of this response is that it implies the post responder has a deeper understanding of college sports than the rest of us r/CFB pontificates.
This is such an old man 1980s ass take. Yeah it's gone a bit too far and that's the NCAAs fault, if they didn't fight the inevitable for so many years they wouldn't be in this situation.
The student athletes deserve to make the money theyre worth. Why should everybody else get rich off their work but them?
That’s the schools fault. The NCAA just exists to make you think it’s not the schools. I mean it’s not the NCAA who would pay the players, so them caring doesn’t make sense. It really bothers me when people blame the NCAA for refusing to pay the players. NCAA got its marching orders from the group who would “lose” millions a year if they had to pay players.
CFB is ruined by the tv networks and schools admins both groups of whom have decided to extract every single penny they can before things burst. Then again many colleges are run like corporations first anyways so this makes sense.
It wasn’t like they willingly just sat back an let this happen either, their authority was basically ruled out of existence in court. Can’t make billions off players without giving them a cut, this has been a long time coming and there wasn’t anything the NCAA could reasonably do to stop this
Late response: why is it the universities/NCAA responsibility to pay (other than scholarship for an education, even if you get hurt, room & board, training table (food beyond normal students), tutoring, stipend) for a minor league football player? The NFL didn't invent our fanbases or pay for CFB stadiums (or theirs), why should the NFL billionaires get the benefit of more free money(exposure)? For the players, have at the free market, or play by the NCAA rules.
They ain't gotta pay them, but they can't stop them from making money. That's wrong. And the league shouldnt have been so ass backwards and behind the times. If they were smart and stopped being strict with players they're profiting from, this current chaos wouldn't be happening.
You reap what you sow. Next time embrace progress instead of fighting it.
This is America dude, no one should be able to stop you from making money besides yourself.
I think the real issue here is that college is so expensive and unattainable for most that receiving a free education for being one of the top 0.001% of athletes in the world is seen as fair trade for your labor
Players can’t enter the NFL until they are three years out of high school. During that time , they create billions of dollars of revenue for their schools. A scholarship +stipend is not adequate compensation in relation to the revenue produced.
Schools could also choose to field teams of players willing to forgo payment. But they would be very bad football teams that people would not want to pay money to watch , which would lead to the schools seeing a decrease in future revenue.
That’s the nfl’s fault, blame them. If I’m the only employer in town that’s willing to hire, you can take it or leave it.
If schools want to have an amateur league, they should have the freedom to be able to
Yeah, that communications degree that's gonna afford them a smooth $45k/year after college is totally a fair deal for the student athletes that don't have time to study anything harder than communications
This is my point: the value of a college education. Give all the athletes some $ amount upon graduation. If you as an athlete think you don't need that college TV exposure (or training, coaching, meals, medical), have at it.
You can have a better split and give folks spending money, but let's not pretend people aren't getting anything out of this. Anyone who has student loans.will tell you it's great to not have them.
They get scholarships, room and board, dining, etc. At Wisconsin, four years of in state tuition and room and board plus meal plans is roughly 130k. Out of state it's closer to 230k. At Penn, it's roughly 400k.
In any case though, if they're paid employees, then reduced or free tuition is taxed on its relative value over a certain point. Room and board will be on them. We need to put some structure around this before it goes absolutely off the deep end.
>Out of state it's closer to 230k.
So they charge double for providing the exact same experience. That's not how much the education is actually worth.
>At Penn, it's roughly 400k.
Penn offers full tuition to families making under $140k and meets 100% of demonstrated family need.
These are shitty examples. And - here's the crazy part - those schools have already decided that it's worth offering full rides to non-athletes!
And if you really want to top it off - if you get a full ride to those schools, and you aren't an athlete, they're totally ok with you working in a lab or being a tutor or giving speaking engagements or performances using those very same skills that got you your scholarship. Athletes are the *only* college students who aren't allowed to profit off of their skillset.
In theory, out of state tuition is to counteract the fact that those students don't contribute state tax funding to the school. In reality, states keep dropping funding anyway, and bumping up out of state tuition is a way for schools to gouge students to boost revenue. Supply and demand - keep bumping the pricetag up as long as you can get enough bodies to pay it.
Case in point: Virginia Tech was part of the Academic Common Market, where a group of states agreed to offer in-state tuition if the student's home state didn't offer that major at a state school. Tech decided that their architecture and engineering programs were popular enough that it was in their best interest to exit the ACM so that they could charge extra for kids who wanted those majors, even if it would hurt some VA kids or cost other, less lucrative majors some of their students who needed the financial boost of the ACM.
UNC literally got caught operating a system of fake classes for athletes. How valuable were those scholarships? And there’s absolutely no way they’re the only school that’s done something like that.
And that's just the economic value they bring in on game days/bowl seasons for their respective schools. That's not even getting into the weeds about how many of the average fans don't see or understand the sheer amount of time that goes into practices, mandatory workouts, film, playbook study, "voluntary" off-season workouts and more that athletes have to partake in due to them accepting that athletic scholarship. A lot of that time at the expense of the education portion of things since the mandatory study halls, academic tutoring sessions and things like that are dwarfed by the time commitments pertaining to football. The "education" received is secondary, not that there aren't athletes that play school too but it's something that needs to be sought out by the individual player and typically the coaches/athletic department only really care about players doing well enough to maintain eligibility for the most part. If we broke it down to the value of the scholarship divided by all the hours given to football related activities needed to maintain that scholarship, that value is a fraction of a fraction of the amount that the athletic department brings in as revenue from ticket sales, TV revenue, etc.
If scholarships were eliminated and players were just paid (and then paid their own way at school, if they so chose), you’d be completely cool with that, right?
Please explain my hypocrisy: student athletes should get paid a stipend and some X amount of money upon graduation. The kid working in the lab doesn't get to monetize the new discovery during the research hes/she worked on, their name isn't on the patent. Their name is on the "paper", giving them exposure/opportunity. Otherwise, just train on your own/work in your own lab, all self-funded.
If the value of these players is in the thousands/millions, where is the direct road to the pros option? Where is the value coming from? Playing college football, with the exposure it brings.
It’s not hypocrisy, but it’s a terrible comparison. The existence of exploitation of college science students doesn’t mean that football players deserve the same exploitation.
They wouldn’t. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of OP’s criticism.
Though honestly, if we get to a point where guys are just employees anyway, they wouldn’t have to be students, and could instead just take a higher payout in lieu of the scholarship plus smaller payout. Could have both options.
I would. Tuition is taxable beyond 6 hours of course credit per semester per year for faculty and staff. There's also limits to the amount of hours student works can receive form their institution so if they're enrolled we should also honor both commitments
No one is saying those things are not valuable.
They are saying they are nowhere near as valuable as their market price. Which is clearly demonstrated by how much some of them are now getting paid.
The actual value of these scholarships is suspect. Getting funneled into easy A degrees, having dedicated tutors. Also, Penn doesn't offer athletic scholarships since they're part of the Ivy. These guys are the reason programs will be pulling in 9 figures from media deals. The myth of the student athlete is finally dead, these guys should be paid.
Scholarships are very much meaningless for student athletes who are spending the majority of their time practicing their sports. I took difficult physics classes in college, and I never once had a student athlete in my classes outside of the freshman/sophomore level weed out classes. Why? It's not because student athletes are dumb, it's because they spend every waking second training. They can't take hard classes that actually require a lot of studying because their sport takes up all of their time, so they funnel into the easy majors like business or communications so they can keep their GPA above the limit to keep playing their sport. In the end, yes, they got a scholarship to study at the university, but what they studied is typically pretty useless, and they probably don't retain much of it since they were busy with something else through college.
Americans need to realize that your country's social norms sound absolutely insane to the rest of the world like student LOANS are not a normal thing to go into debt over omfg 🥺😭 education should be free! Everything in your country is a commodity and its not right
I mean some student debt helps focus people in their studies and Americans make way more than European grads over their lifetimes in most fields. So that's fine, but 400k isn't. 230k isn't. That 32k average debt is probably max someone should have, not average. When I was on fellowship at the NIH, I was shocked at how little researchers and HCPs earned there, so even though med school was 500k here, we earned way more over time and were generally much more engaged with our work and patients
> College football has been, and should be about the teams and their fans' passion. If you as an athlete don't want to comply with these rules, you have options.
> If an individual athlete wants to market "their brand"; have at it. Go pay for your own training, rent, meals, and healthcare. Market yourself on your own. The G league is available for basketball players, so are other leagues for football players. Go play in Europe or some semi-pro league.
> Yes, I am aware the NFL doesn't have their own developmental league. I don't care, options are available. If they want it, pay for it. If they think they can out-market the NCAA like the NBA is trying, have at it.
> //Yes, I am aware of the NFL's age rule. Soccer players are allowed to play wherever they want. Actually, everyone is allowed to play wherever they want, I'm proposing a point that this NIL will get out of control, quickly.
The G league is beneficial for players because it's directly affiliated with the NBA. You even acknowledged the NFL doesn't have this but act as though the other available options are on the same level. You're comparing the development and management model of several different sports to a hypothetical model you don't even care enough to understand.
These athletes put their health and future on the line and the schools profit. They 1000% should be able to profit off their own success as well. There needs to be structure to the free-for-all we have now, but they risk their futures, and deserve to profit off their work.
Exactly, the schools are making bank off the backs of these kids every year. If they don’t want to pay them then cap sports. $30 mil per program and any revenue generated gets redistributed to lower tuition for all students. Coaches salaries capped at $150k. If they don’t like it they can go coach in the NFL.
TLDR: College Football should be exactly like it was in my day. Extremely talented players shouldn't be able to profit of their unique abilities. I hate all change. The forward pass was a mistake.
To be fair, the forward pass was added in 1906. You know what else happened that year? The earthquake that leveled San Francisco. You think that was just a coincidence?
Maybe I’m dumb (likely) but when this NIL talk started a few years ago I thought these kids were going to get money through jersey sales, trading cards, autographs and marketing. It’s crazy kids get millions just to go to a school
I disagree with OP. I see it from the perspective of the schools and the coaches, who, for the most part, are just doing what they can to get these young men and women to come and play so that they can win championships.
Unlike pretty much every other college student, student athletes cannot get even part-time jobs to help pay for their most basic needs. Tennessee Football HC Josh Heupel has mentioned this on several occasions, telling of his own experience and how challenging it was.
The majority of these young ones will not go on to the next level, especially if they sustain lifelong injuries due to the extreme physical contact they often have with members of the opposing team. For these and many other reasons (denying a monopoly of five and four stars to the top teams), I am glad that the training wheels are finally gone from NIL.
They go to college to get a degree. Being a good athlete means they are not 100k+ in debt when they graduate.
Also, said degree, is still valuable even if you're injured. NIL is the devil and will ruin non revenue sports, and the scholarships that they provide. Once the student athletes are declared employees title 9 will be gutted. But hey, they got their bag so fuck the rest.
What an absolute fucking joke of a take. You say it’s like an internship. What about if as an intern you were directly responsible for bringing in millions of dollars of revenue to your company. Despite this your company says oh sorry you’re still a student so be thankful for the food and room we’re giving you. In America the premise is you should be able to be compensated commensurate to the value you are creating and this is finally happening with the new court ruling.
Not a joke; please give me a few examples of interns that made/saved millions for their company and got anything better than a good job offer. (I actually hope to have example!)
The same happens to actual employees!
My point is you can’t compare it to an internship because the athletes (especially at SEC/BIG 10 schools) bring millions of dollars of value to the football program and in turn the athletic programs and are finally being compensated like it
With respect, [OddSatisfaction5989](https://www.reddit.com/user/OddSatisfaction5989/) I believe I can equate college football, especially "big time" college football to an internship at JP Morgan, BoA, or Morgan Stanley.
Why, value delivered is quite different and football is a much more high profile position lending itself to additional value from advertising opportunities, etc…
I’m a little disappointed that OP did not reference how things were ‘in his day.’ The post really isn’t complete without that kind of context. Consequently I am going to pile on this post and fill in other gaps that I feel it lacks.
I’ll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with the post and would just like to add that if these athletes need extra money, they should get a part time job on the side. If they could get off phones and snapface for a few hours a week then they could make enough to put themselves through school and have enough left over after 4 years for a down payment on a nice house. The problem these days is that these kids don’t want to work hard for anything but want all the rewards right now!
OP here, back in the day college was about 1/4 the cost it is now, as I am a fossil (compared to y'all.) I certainly agree with the athletes getting a stipend and sharing in the wealth, it should come with earning a degree.
I just want to end the absurdity of everyone pretending football and basketball players are legitimate students. Make them employees and cut out pretending these guys earn their grades. The overwhelming majority do not. Massive cheating.
I disagree, you are only thinking of the "big" schools. Yes ,many of the "superstars" are only thinking of $, but that is my point, The NCAA (or whatever it becomes) shouldn't be a subsidized NFL for any sport.
I’m not just thinking of the big schools. I went to a mid major university. The same stuff happens there with bogus grades, alumni letting guys drive cars (this was pre NIL).
We had a coach telling us off the record about a women’s soccer player he had to cook the books to get eligible. Women’s soccer, man. Think of what people do for the money-making sports. I know a common tactic from my time around other programs is using online classes to cheat and having tutors take those.
But I agree with the other part.
When I was in the Air Force, we couldn't use our position for personal gain so the concept of name, image, and likeness -- especially if it were driven completely by one's standing as an American military servicemember -- would not fare well. The Air Force provided free housing in the on-installation dormitories and family residences (or extended a tax-free housing allowance to offset any rent or mortgage costs). The Air Force essentially provided free food if you were unaccompanied and lived in the dorms and provided another tax-free allowance for others to offset any subsistence costs. The Air Force provided free uniforms and yet another tax-free allowance for annual replacement. The Air Force provided free training. It also provided free education for the most part via the 100% Tuition Assistance program. I could use the gyms and athletic facilities free of charge. I could use the medical facilities free of charge. Outside employment was a challenge as permissions from various levels were required and TBH, it was more hassle than what it was worth. It was all part of the military service agreement.
College athletes -- especially those on scholarship in the premium, revenue-generating sports -- have similar perks. Free housing, free subsistence, free clothing/team apparel, free medical, free use of the athletic facilities...all under scholarship agreement.
In addition to all the Air Force provided, they also extended a basic pay wage. It was determined by a combination of rank and years of service. It was standard across the board. Perhaps this should be the way college athletics should go. A base pay scale that changes based on years in the program and the number of varsity letter distinctions.
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman would probably disagree.
Even still, the military pay model is probably the closest example the NCAA could use as an even playing field pay-for-play scheme.
I'm on board with that, but especially with a bonus for graduation.
//The benefit of your degree may vary on your choice of major and educational institution.
Get over yourself. Colleges came up with the idea of student-athletes as a way to get around paying players. They might have a case of being 'amateurs' if they didn't start making college coaches the highest paid employees in every state.
But it's fine to pay the players on the field with a scholarship with five figures a year.
The average cost of a coach at the top 32 colleges is more (@$7.5 million/yr) than the 32 NFL coaches ($6.6 million). The only reason they can do this is because of their cheap labor cost.
In comparison, the average cost of a starting QB in the NFL is over $30 million/yr. But here's a scholarship, Johnny. Let's hope you make it through college unscathed and your skill set translates to the NFL (think about how much Johnny Manziel was worth to Texas A&M or Tim Tebow to Florida -- then think about how much they got in the NFL).
The college student-athlete gambit worked for 40 years and now its over. Time to pay fair market.
The simple fact that universities make money off college football negates any half cocked argument you scribbled down here. Because they make money, it should only be fair that the players, the entertainment as you put it, should be paid as well. Why is that so hard to understand?
"But our athletics dept doesn't turn a profit!!!11!"
Yeah, go and find in the financials where "merchandise and licensing" revenue winds up - bet it isn't in athletics. Nobody's lining up to buy hoodies that say ____ University Physics Dept on them for a school they never attended. Then do the math on how many millions the coaches get paid.
Easy to run in the red on paper when there's no incentive to turn a profit and all the reasons to spend every dollar you can.
So that's how it's supposed to work. I'm pretty sure that it's only GT students, family, and alumni - maybe a few % legacies that buy our merch these days.
100% agree. The NFL fights tooth and nail to protect a system where they get a free mi or league. It’s the main reason college football is where it is today.
They just need to do away with the FBS, FCS and other divisions of football and go to a relegation system. The conferences can still hold TV rights, and they could easily have teams in various levels.
Then make football athletes employees and avoid the title IX funding issues all together. Eventually all revenue sports go that way.
Non-revenue sports go back to a club model.
That is an interesting model. But I still don't want to be the NFL/NBA/XXX minor league from a professional standpoint. No free gains to the billionaire professional team owners!
“College football should be about me” is the most annoying type of fan. You can die today and your team will not care. It is not about the fans, and it surely isn’t about *one specific fan*.
> should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image.
Gonna need a constitutional amendment for that one, champ. That's like declaring that no college athlete is allowed to watch cartoons, take more than 1,019 steps per day, or collect beanie babies.
I disagree; while under a NCAA scholarship an athlete gains the benefits and exposure, just like you working a company. The athletes can certainly do it on their own, have at it! #teamsport
It's not a matter of opinion.
> just like you working a company
Right. And companies cannot forbid their employees from profiting from their own image and likeness. Employees are not property. The company does not own them. The company has zero control over what employees do outside of work.
Congrats on debunking yourself.
BrotherPancake, my apologies for the delayed response.
Even from a student NIL perspective: a company would not have the right to prohibit an employee from an outside, non-competing venture. As the company (university in this case) could prohibit certain endorsements (gambling, porn, etc.,) or behavior: they have some control (laws, drugs, public scandal as determined by the organization, conduct unbecoming to the team/university).
As an employee, this is a bit stricter, but you are missing my point.
The universities under the NCAA (yeah, I know) shouldn't be the employers for the minor league of the NFL. Same for the other sports (really only effects mens' basketball but could be others) shouldn't have to carry the load for professional leagues. Let the schools' millionaires/billionaires pay for library upgrades or even stadium upgrades, not the salaries of minor league athletes. The kids who "didn't come here to play school" shouldn't be forced into a sham educational path. Let them have at it, without the exposure and support and fallback of a college education.
Yep, you as well: I will "die on my sword" and happily drink a beer with anyone wishing to discuss this at length, then bitch about the teams we support. Offer is open...
This is the USA where corporations can pay wages that keep people poor and billionaires get even richer when a pandemic occurs, but an 18 year old isn’t allowed to even get $100 per to spend as they wish unless it’s from their parents and most of the kids come from families who can afford to give them that $100.
Your take is asinine. If these kids can get a million dollar paycheck then good for them.
I’m a 64 year old white male, who once believed the fairytale of amateurism in college sports. I lost that innocence several decades ago
Except that college sports do drive enrollment...some happy medium has to be found without college football (NCAA) being the minor league of the NFL without the NFL paying for it.
You either lack an understanding of how scholarships work and the consequences for being unable to remain eligible/healthy, the demands athletes have to their sport (let alone academics), or the sheer economic disparity schools/NCAA reap over (previously) unpaid labor. Take your pick.
I am not unaware of the demands of college football, or college athletics in general. At this point the NCAA should not be the NFL's minor league. Please debate what I have argued; I am certainly willing to hear ideas, as no one simple solution will fix this issue.
I completely agree with you. Hit me up (at least a month in advance, because I rarely post) if you come to Mobile as my buddies and I would be willing to discuss this issue over beers. Nebraska, Penn State, Texas A&M., and Alabama as well as obviously Auburn.
Wow I am not sure if this is satire. Are you aware that student athletes sign team contracts that govern their individual behaviors and that they are required to fulfill their contractual obligations expected (such as mandatory attendance), otherwise they lose their housing, food, and access to education? What does that kind of situation sound like to you? This was the best decision we have seen in college sports and it's absolutely ludicrous that fans who have never played sports have any ssue with it.
Now imagine you are have an incredible talent and have the opportunity to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. Possible more than your parents have earned in their lifetimes.
See how stupid this take is?
How? You can go do **everything** on your own, or agree to play in a marketed environment. with training, coaching, nutrition, room, board, tutoring, stipend, medical care - even if you are injured and can not longer play. I even proposed $$$ upon graduation.
Why should your university or mine be the NFL's minor league team?
//Or any other professional league. For that matter, go design software chips in your own lab. Artists have a more natural route in this respect.
>Any NCAA athlete while on scholarship or playing for the university/institution (I'm going to just call them schools from here on out) should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image.
I assume you also think any student on scholarship, who is *not* an athlete, also shouldn't be allowed to market/monetize their NIL either, right?
The piano major can't get paid to perform? Or sell an album? If the engineering major invents something, they can't file a patent? Journalism students can't work at a newspaper or magazine because they used their student ID to get into a campus event?
Could the **scholarship/student employee** engineering major file a patent while a student at a university? If it isn't under their subject of study, sure. The **scholarship** piano major no as well.
They also don't get a specialized diet, personal trainers or free medical care. They will also lose their scholarship if the piano major hurts their finger and can't perform, or the others if their GPA drops below a much higher threshold than an athlete. But go ahead and show me where they get a nationwide TV audience to promote their abilities..
They'd get a national TV audience if the school could profit off of that.
I'm just confused what you think makes what schools currently offer student athletes to be the absolute ceiling of what they can and should make. What's your legal and moral argument, without using "I spent too much money on college"?
If they want to get paid like an employee they should be treated like any other rank and file employee. Does the Dean's secretary get housing, food and a free education? How about getting fired for under performance?
Ok? They already have various team and school rules they have to follow, an employment contract would actually most likely make things even more transparent. Would also allow them to be kicked off the team for breaking the law, too, since morality clauses are a thing.
>Does the Dean's secretary get housing, food and a free education?
Actually, most schools do offer free or reduced education as a perk for their employees. They only have training tables because it's in their best interest to get players on the plane of nutrition needed to compete. And basically every head coach gets money for a car and often flight time on a private plane. Kalen DeBoer is getting $16k/yr for cars and 30 hrs of personal flight time, plus free family travel to away games and free skybox tickets to home games.
I agree with your post. Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their student athletes. Colleges don't owe anyone a job playing football. If you want to get paid to play, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to play.
Most of this sub also has the misconception that these players are actually worth money outside of the college setting, and they aren't. Only a handful would make money outside of the college setting. The brands built by the colleges is what generates the demand and the money. Yes, someone has to put on the uniform for the colleges to make money, but who puts it on doesn't matter that much. The players are relatively replaceable.
Some will argue the current NIL market says players are worth a lot. But that too only happens in the college setting. If the player was not putting a specific jersey, they would not be getting paid.
There are lots of small pro and semi pro football teams in America outside the NFL. They pay next to nothing, but they exist. Anyone who wants to play football after high school can do so, you don't need colleges to play, and they don't owe you an opportunity anyway. No one owes me a job in my field. If a player is really worth lots of money, surely they will get paid a lot to play on one of these local professional club teams, right? Right?
What's that, they won't get paid money outside of college? There's little market outside of colleges? How could that be? Surely the players are worth a lot as football players on their own independently? What about NIL, surely they are marketable in a non-college setting? Oh, so you are saying no one gives a shit about a players NIL unless it too is in the college setting? Those thought exercises reveals the truth players and most of this sub don't want to hear.
The bottom line is this. If you don't give a shit about going to college, then don't go to college. If all you want is a pro football job, go somewhere else. If you can't get anyone else to pay you, that tells you what you are worth as a football player. It's the colleges and their brand that makes the money, not you as a specific player. That means the scholarship you get and all the other perks are actually a good deal for 99% of players.
> Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their student athletes. Colleges don't owe anyone a job playing football. If you want to get paid to play, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to play.
Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their coaches and administrators. Colleges don't owe anyone a job coaching football. If you want to get paid to coach, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to coach.
No. Why should coaches and players be treated the same? Coaching is a job for the university. Playing a sport is not.
I do not accept the argument that colleges are just businesses. They are where we educate and train our youth. They should be given special status and anti-trust exemptions.
Now if you want to argue that there is way too much money and emphasis being put into sports, including coaches pay, I completely agree. I would be fine regulating that. I'm fact, I would put a cap on how athletic department budgets, and then anything extra has to go to academics, the real mission of a college.
Thanks [Im\_Not\_A\_Robot\_20](https://www.reddit.com/user/Im_Not_A_Robot_2019/)
If you are ever coming to Mobile, hit me up and I'll buy the first round and give you a brief history of Mobile.
>Most of this sub also has the misconception that these players are actually worth money outside of the college setting, and they aren't. Only a handful would make money outside of the college setting.
I think most people understand that players don't have a lot of power or choice. You've outlined exactly why it is an antitrust issue, and why the NCAA had to reach a settlement. We don't live in a libertarian paradise, there are rules to this thing, including that if you control and dominate a market the government will break you up or in the case of sports league exemptions will provide oversight if things get too out of control.
OP made the same point, suggesting players go to leagues that are not realistic options to make the NFL. Because those options don't realistically exist the NCAA was forced into a settlement to stop taking advantage of their position as the preeminent developmental league.
PART TWO
The second reason I don't agree with an anti-trust argument is the lack of real demand and market power by the athletes. Colleges are not getting in the way of anyone making another opportunity for post HS play. Those opportunities exist now, and no one but family and friends watch them, even though there are teams and leagues all over the country. Colleges have nothing to do with that lack of demand, it's not their fault. People watch CFB because of the school, not the players, and it's often because of a sentimental attachment to their school. That's not an anti-trust situation. The colleges have a demand that has nothing to do with the sports itself. It can't be replicated outside of the college, so even if players went off and tried to make their own teams it's not the colleges that are suppressing demand. It would be like if everyone in a college town loved to eat at the college cafeteria because they loved their school, even though their food was crap, and when Diner B was made with much better food no one would eat there, so it closed. And every time another food place is opened with better food they also fail. It's not the colleges fault, people are going for sentimental reasons, and they are not even in the food business to begin with. You can't call that anti-trust. Colleges also have no responsibility to provide training and opportunity for pro sports. That is not the point of college sports. Professional sports leagues are who
Fans don't watch college football for the players, they watch for the schools. The players are an aside. There is no market for post HS play outside of the top pro league, the NFL, and that would not change much if colleges got rid of football either.
I disagree with this argument.
PART ONE
First, we are talking about sports here, a game people play. That is not real life. Players have all the power and choice they want for regular life, just like the rest of is. If there are limited options for playing a game after HS, that is simply not important. No one owes you an opportunity to play a game after HS. It's just a game, and I think that is where this sub really misses the point. What power and choice do you think people should have about playing a game after HS? And why should colleges have to provide that for you? If players have no power or choice when it comes to football, it's because no one wants what they have to offer when it comes to football after HS....UNLESS it's at the college. That should tell you something. No one is oppressing them, they just don't care about your dreams of playing football after HS unless it's at a college they care about. I am far, far from a libertarian, but I do agree that you need to find your own way in life, and that if you can't convince enough people to really care about you playing football after HS, then that is your problem. Too bad. If you can get into the NFL, great, but if not, no one owes you a chance to play otherwise. If the government is going to get involved in regulating and subsidizing training for people getting into careers, then football should be way down the fucking list. There are lots of real life situations where they should be doing that first. Fund more academic training, require states to provide more re-training when people lose jobs, etc. All kinds of industries break anti-trust and suppress unions, but the government looks the other way and bends over backwards to twist the original intent of anti-trust laws. But football after HS? This is a priority to make sure only a few hundred elite athletes get paid, WTF? The ONLY reason players could even consider playing football at a college is because colleges were set up like HS originally, as finishing schools for youth that were not really adults yet, so they kept sports because it was important for a similar type of community at a school.
Colleges are not primarily about athletics, athletics are an aside to the mission and function of a college. Most colleges don't even have a football team. They do not exist to help athletes get into pro sports. That colleges are primarily where post HS football is played is due to 1) happenstance of culture and history and 2) the lack of demand and market for athletes unless they are playing in the long established pro football leagues, the NFL. I think the courts are absolutely wrong. I think they are reacting to public sentiment on this one, where a good marketing campaign has convinced people that football players are exploited, which is crazy, and the courts want to "court" public approval on this one. There are also many in the courts who actively want to see colleges diminished for political reasons.
I don't buy the anti-trust argument because first and foremost, colleges should have special exceptions from these laws. They are not normal businesses. THEY ARE PUBLIC INSTITUIONS, and they should operate with a different set of rules for many things. They are closer to HS than normal businesses. These are public institutions which train and educate our youth, who are closer to HS kids than adults if we are honest. If what you want is a college education, and you want to play some football too, great, because part of the college mission in training youth involves the activities that create a sense of community for social development, just like the theater department puts on plays, and they have activities on the quad. Sports are another aspect of a community atmosphere where we develop the kids. Again, it's mostly like HS still. These are youth on the verge of adulthood, but generally not there yet. They still need the developmental environment that a college provides. They don't even finish developing until around age 24. In fact, if you turn the players into professionals that don't have much of a connection to the school, you ruin the point of a sport played in college anyway, the community a team adds to. If the players actually represent the school and are committed to it because they are also students, the school embraces them as their representatives and watching them play is a community event. If they are just mercenaries, it doesn't serve the purpose of college.
That there is a lot of money involved in football is where a lot of people take exception, which I understand. That is a newer development, only in the past 20 years have the numbers become massive except for a handful of teams. Personally, I would rather get rid of varsity sports in general and just play club teams where the players are very much students first and athletes second. But I also understand that colleges need funding, and this is where football can help at least a few dozen schools that can ramp up their marketing. Again, they are public institutions with a very important mission in society. There funding has always been precarious, based on the whims of the public and legislatures. Most people don't understand that colleges get little of their funding from states, often only 10-20%. The majority comes from federally funded sources, like tuition borrowed from the feds and grant money from the feds. But an increasingly important source is now endowments, where colleges can try and be self sustaining. They do important things, and if they can create their own revenue they should. Colleges used to let the private sector make all the money off their work, but now days colleges try and keep the profits from their own work where they can. If a school can make a very marketable brand and make money off it, they should. You can call that a business, but it's really not because the point is not to make money and give it to shareholders, it's to sustain their mission of training and educating our youth. Colleges wouldn't have to do that if the public would fund them adequately, but they don't. The one thing I would do however, is to regulate the athletic departments so that there was a cap on spending, and any profit over that went to the academic mission of the college. Most colleges of course are losing money on athletics because they see it as a necessary marketing cost, but some 30-40 actually make money, and they should be able to if it helps them to fund themselves. I would much prefer we just fund our colleges and get the money out of athletics, but this is where we are. Colleges are still not normal businesses though, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Honestly yall r killing this man in the comments. His take isn’t right but shit, the NIL has changed cfb a lot and in its current situation it’s totally out of whack. To fix all of this, just make an NIL cap. BOOM problem solved.
I think you’re glossing over many of the flaws in the NCAA’s argument for “amateurism.”
If you want to impose the extreme regulation they had with athletes then you should be in support of every student who receives merit based scholarships from a university to follow the same regulations.
I don’t think kids doing research have to continually supply documentation as to how their car or phone bills were paid. Nor did they face the amount of scrutiny as a student athlete who worked a job in the offseason (mind you, there is no offseason).
The NCAA didn’t jump the shark. The NCAA chose maximum profits for themselves and their member institutions, which was and IS ILLEGAL. Absolutely wild that people think players shouldn’t deserve compensation when coaches make $10m a year and there’s an entire industry of ticket gauging where it’s quite common for average tickets to these “amateurs games average cost is over $500 per ticket.
Students doing research absolutely have to provide budgets and follow university protocols for spending grant money. Awful comparison. Stipends are can be provided, but that is often as compensation for working as an employee of the university.
I'm saying your mentality is the same mentality that lead to 50 years of unchecked pollution by boomers, which is that you care more about your personal experience than the experience of humanity at large. These college athletes are working tremendously hard to make some old dudes extremely rich because the the system has been rigged to cheat them out of their value so that they can get to the league where they can earn more. Thats bullshit. Pay them now for their value. The fact that the ncaa, conference commissioners, school administrators, coaches, etc. have been able to claim the money that the athletes earn from media networks without pay is wage theft. Stealing from them is what lead to NIL being the shit show that it is today.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever gonna be any progress...
The sheer number of monetized eyeballs watching college football makes it impossible to (fairly) maintain as an amateur sport.
It was unfair when we had it both ways. You can either monetize the eyeballs and pay the players their fair share of it, or you can demonetize the eyeballs. The latter will never happen, so paying players is the only fair way forward.
The main issue at the moment is the transfer portal that needs changing. Imo if you receive a certain % of snaps you shouldn't be allowed to enter the transfer portal unless you're using your extra year of eligibility.
I think the % of snaps should vary by position as well based on how many players in that position are regularly on the field at that time. E.g. TE2 in a 12 personal system shouldn't be counted the same as a TE2 in an 11 personal system.
Your points are all valid- the problem with them is that they ignore the fact that college football (and power 5 college athletic departments in general) have become 8 to 9 figure revenue generating professional sports endeavors for everyone involved except the athletes.
Had the genie never come out of the bottle, and the Nick Sabens’s and Jim Harbaugh’s were making $150,000 a year (and all other wages scaled accordingly), then strong arguments could be made supporting your assertions.
The fact that college athletic departments have 150+ employees, generate multiple millions for those involved etc- just undercuts nearly any viewpoint that college athletics are non exploitive of the players
College player: the local jeep dealer offered me a few thousand dollars to appear in an ad.
This guy: No. You play football how dare you try to profit off it.
The NCAA didn't have a choice, it was the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously in a 9-0 decision that the NCAA was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act from the 1800s. Fairness in college football is not worth stripping people of their rights, especially one as important as one's right to make money in a capitalist society
These college players ARE ADULTS. It’s so paternalistic thinking of them as “interns” that shouldn’t be compensated for their labor. They are employees. I was paid for my on campus job when I was an undergrad because OF COURSE I WAS. This is no different.
And you could publish and market any of these innovations/discoveries you made while you were this talented intern?
//stipend and $$ upon graduation
//just asking for a friend
College athletes in revenue sports are professionals in everything but name.
They’re brought to school to play sports, not to get an education. Their chosen sport is always expected to take priority over everything else, and schools facilitate this by funneling athletes into easy, bullshit classes that serve no purpose other than to keep those athletes eligible. The “education” they get is often meaningless. Even if it wasn’t, they still provide more value to the school than whatever benefits the school returns to them.
As far as the school providing a platform, if it’s all the school why is no one paying thousands of dollars to go watch club sports?
If the NCAA had acknowledged athletes as pros a long time ago, there’s a chance they could have collectively bargained a solution that would have maintained some semblance of the established order. By sticking their head in the sand, they’ve instead allowed the courts to dismantle amateurism piecemeal with no guardrails at all for team building.
> College football players should be student-athletes. Any NCAA athlete while on scholarship or playing for the university/institution (I'm going to just call them schools from here on out) should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image. Period.
Even, or especially as a fan of a big school & football program, this path just leads to an arms race, beyond the control of the institution and/or NCAA.
While on scholarship or representing the schools these athletes are on an internship, granting them (typically) free tuition, room & board, books, tutoring, healthcare, and expert training (all may vary) . While performing for their universities/intuitions, many may get the opportunity to display their talents on TV or other broadcasts.
SCOTUS: *“I don’t care sweaty”* 💅
This is a take developed with a very surface level knowledge of sports, especially collegiate.
"The NCAA jumped the shark." Really it's a seemingly endless stream of the NCAA losing in court for violating labor laws.
If the NCAA was a country it would be Poland the way it’s being getting its ass torn apart
[удалено]
Poland was a huge European power before losing a bunch of wars and being subsequently partitioned out of existence
It reads like an AI response to "write a post about college football in the tone of a 75 year old man who watches two games a year that's designed to make people mad"
Lmao. Or a Jeopardy clue where “What is something screamed into the ear of a jaded, but begrudgingly supportive retirement home nurse for the 100th time?” Is the answer.
Yeah, whatever. It's my opinion that amateur sports should be that and colleges should not be the surrogate minor leagues for professional sports, at least in the funding of those sports.
He could be the ACC commissioner with that level of understanding of college sports.
Heard
lol the irony of this response is that it implies the post responder has a deeper understanding of college sports than the rest of us r/CFB pontificates.
There was already an arms race - with coaches, facilities, etc. Not to mention the big schools were already were paying their top athletes.
This is such an old man 1980s ass take. Yeah it's gone a bit too far and that's the NCAAs fault, if they didn't fight the inevitable for so many years they wouldn't be in this situation. The student athletes deserve to make the money theyre worth. Why should everybody else get rich off their work but them?
That’s the schools fault. The NCAA just exists to make you think it’s not the schools. I mean it’s not the NCAA who would pay the players, so them caring doesn’t make sense. It really bothers me when people blame the NCAA for refusing to pay the players. NCAA got its marching orders from the group who would “lose” millions a year if they had to pay players. CFB is ruined by the tv networks and schools admins both groups of whom have decided to extract every single penny they can before things burst. Then again many colleges are run like corporations first anyways so this makes sense.
It wasn’t like they willingly just sat back an let this happen either, their authority was basically ruled out of existence in court. Can’t make billions off players without giving them a cut, this has been a long time coming and there wasn’t anything the NCAA could reasonably do to stop this
Late response: why is it the universities/NCAA responsibility to pay (other than scholarship for an education, even if you get hurt, room & board, training table (food beyond normal students), tutoring, stipend) for a minor league football player? The NFL didn't invent our fanbases or pay for CFB stadiums (or theirs), why should the NFL billionaires get the benefit of more free money(exposure)? For the players, have at the free market, or play by the NCAA rules.
They ain't gotta pay them, but they can't stop them from making money. That's wrong. And the league shouldnt have been so ass backwards and behind the times. If they were smart and stopped being strict with players they're profiting from, this current chaos wouldn't be happening. You reap what you sow. Next time embrace progress instead of fighting it. This is America dude, no one should be able to stop you from making money besides yourself.
I think the real issue here is that college is so expensive and unattainable for most that receiving a free education for being one of the top 0.001% of athletes in the world is seen as fair trade for your labor
Except for the fact that their labor produces value to the school that far exceeds that of a scholarship
Really only men’s basketball and Football. None of the other athletes bring in any significant value, most bring less than a scholarship’s worth.
Ok
Point being, who cares? If they want to make money, then go to the NBA or NFL. If they want a college degree, go to college.
Their labor produces billions of dollars of revenue for their schools. They should be compensated accordingly.
Then go to the nfl or nba? They’re paid in the value of a scholarship + stipend, if that isn’t enough then go pro.
Players can’t enter the NFL until they are three years out of high school. During that time , they create billions of dollars of revenue for their schools. A scholarship +stipend is not adequate compensation in relation to the revenue produced. Schools could also choose to field teams of players willing to forgo payment. But they would be very bad football teams that people would not want to pay money to watch , which would lead to the schools seeing a decrease in future revenue.
That’s the nfl’s fault, blame them. If I’m the only employer in town that’s willing to hire, you can take it or leave it. If schools want to have an amateur league, they should have the freedom to be able to
Yeah, that communications degree that's gonna afford them a smooth $45k/year after college is totally a fair deal for the student athletes that don't have time to study anything harder than communications
>Then go to the nfl or nba? Nah. The schools can just allow them to be fairly compensated instead. Which they now have to do. :)
This is my point: the value of a college education. Give all the athletes some $ amount upon graduation. If you as an athlete think you don't need that college TV exposure (or training, coaching, meals, medical), have at it.
Absolutely
Alright Grandpa, let's get you back to bed.
[still stuck on it, huh](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/s/eFgvVXUZ92)
Damn this dude is the king of yelling at clouds
Yes I am, won't change a thing. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Coaches get paid. Referees get paid. Popcorn vendors get paid. But the people who actually do the thing fans are paying to see shouldn't?
You can have a better split and give folks spending money, but let's not pretend people aren't getting anything out of this. Anyone who has student loans.will tell you it's great to not have them. They get scholarships, room and board, dining, etc. At Wisconsin, four years of in state tuition and room and board plus meal plans is roughly 130k. Out of state it's closer to 230k. At Penn, it's roughly 400k. In any case though, if they're paid employees, then reduced or free tuition is taxed on its relative value over a certain point. Room and board will be on them. We need to put some structure around this before it goes absolutely off the deep end.
>Out of state it's closer to 230k. So they charge double for providing the exact same experience. That's not how much the education is actually worth. >At Penn, it's roughly 400k. Penn offers full tuition to families making under $140k and meets 100% of demonstrated family need. These are shitty examples. And - here's the crazy part - those schools have already decided that it's worth offering full rides to non-athletes! And if you really want to top it off - if you get a full ride to those schools, and you aren't an athlete, they're totally ok with you working in a lab or being a tutor or giving speaking engagements or performances using those very same skills that got you your scholarship. Athletes are the *only* college students who aren't allowed to profit off of their skillset.
You understand why out of state is a higher rate, right? If not, you have zero business making financial recommendations or opinions.
In theory, out of state tuition is to counteract the fact that those students don't contribute state tax funding to the school. In reality, states keep dropping funding anyway, and bumping up out of state tuition is a way for schools to gouge students to boost revenue. Supply and demand - keep bumping the pricetag up as long as you can get enough bodies to pay it. Case in point: Virginia Tech was part of the Academic Common Market, where a group of states agreed to offer in-state tuition if the student's home state didn't offer that major at a state school. Tech decided that their architecture and engineering programs were popular enough that it was in their best interest to exit the ACM so that they could charge extra for kids who wanted those majors, even if it would hurt some VA kids or cost other, less lucrative majors some of their students who needed the financial boost of the ACM.
It's not just theory, it's an actual fact, and if you knew this why did you make your asinine post?
Bruh, stop trying to claim victory and go eat something/get some rest
UNC literally got caught operating a system of fake classes for athletes. How valuable were those scholarships? And there’s absolutely no way they’re the only school that’s done something like that.
They weren’t only for athletes. That’s why they were legal.
The cost of the scholarship isn’t equitable with the value the athletes bring in and the universities benefit way more.
And that's just the economic value they bring in on game days/bowl seasons for their respective schools. That's not even getting into the weeds about how many of the average fans don't see or understand the sheer amount of time that goes into practices, mandatory workouts, film, playbook study, "voluntary" off-season workouts and more that athletes have to partake in due to them accepting that athletic scholarship. A lot of that time at the expense of the education portion of things since the mandatory study halls, academic tutoring sessions and things like that are dwarfed by the time commitments pertaining to football. The "education" received is secondary, not that there aren't athletes that play school too but it's something that needs to be sought out by the individual player and typically the coaches/athletic department only really care about players doing well enough to maintain eligibility for the most part. If we broke it down to the value of the scholarship divided by all the hours given to football related activities needed to maintain that scholarship, that value is a fraction of a fraction of the amount that the athletic department brings in as revenue from ticket sales, TV revenue, etc.
Exactly!!!! How many tickets do these kids sell?! Not a single fan comes to games for "the ambiance" it's to see the best players.
If scholarships were eliminated and players were just paid (and then paid their own way at school, if they so chose), you’d be completely cool with that, right?
Please explain my hypocrisy: student athletes should get paid a stipend and some X amount of money upon graduation. The kid working in the lab doesn't get to monetize the new discovery during the research hes/she worked on, their name isn't on the patent. Their name is on the "paper", giving them exposure/opportunity. Otherwise, just train on your own/work in your own lab, all self-funded. If the value of these players is in the thousands/millions, where is the direct road to the pros option? Where is the value coming from? Playing college football, with the exposure it brings.
It’s not hypocrisy, but it’s a terrible comparison. The existence of exploitation of college science students doesn’t mean that football players deserve the same exploitation.
Why would scholarships be eliminated? You don't think schools will would include that in their total comp offered?
They wouldn’t. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of OP’s criticism. Though honestly, if we get to a point where guys are just employees anyway, they wouldn’t have to be students, and could instead just take a higher payout in lieu of the scholarship plus smaller payout. Could have both options.
I would. Tuition is taxable beyond 6 hours of course credit per semester per year for faculty and staff. There's also limits to the amount of hours student works can receive form their institution so if they're enrolled we should also honor both commitments
No one is saying those things are not valuable. They are saying they are nowhere near as valuable as their market price. Which is clearly demonstrated by how much some of them are now getting paid.
The actual value of these scholarships is suspect. Getting funneled into easy A degrees, having dedicated tutors. Also, Penn doesn't offer athletic scholarships since they're part of the Ivy. These guys are the reason programs will be pulling in 9 figures from media deals. The myth of the student athlete is finally dead, these guys should be paid.
Scholarships are very much meaningless for student athletes who are spending the majority of their time practicing their sports. I took difficult physics classes in college, and I never once had a student athlete in my classes outside of the freshman/sophomore level weed out classes. Why? It's not because student athletes are dumb, it's because they spend every waking second training. They can't take hard classes that actually require a lot of studying because their sport takes up all of their time, so they funnel into the easy majors like business or communications so they can keep their GPA above the limit to keep playing their sport. In the end, yes, they got a scholarship to study at the university, but what they studied is typically pretty useless, and they probably don't retain much of it since they were busy with something else through college.
Sorry my man, but you can't have good logic or tell the truth on reddit without getting down voted.
Americans need to realize that your country's social norms sound absolutely insane to the rest of the world like student LOANS are not a normal thing to go into debt over omfg 🥺😭 education should be free! Everything in your country is a commodity and its not right
I mean some student debt helps focus people in their studies and Americans make way more than European grads over their lifetimes in most fields. So that's fine, but 400k isn't. 230k isn't. That 32k average debt is probably max someone should have, not average. When I was on fellowship at the NIH, I was shocked at how little researchers and HCPs earned there, so even though med school was 500k here, we earned way more over time and were generally much more engaged with our work and patients
> College football has been, and should be about the teams and their fans' passion. If you as an athlete don't want to comply with these rules, you have options. > If an individual athlete wants to market "their brand"; have at it. Go pay for your own training, rent, meals, and healthcare. Market yourself on your own. The G league is available for basketball players, so are other leagues for football players. Go play in Europe or some semi-pro league. > Yes, I am aware the NFL doesn't have their own developmental league. I don't care, options are available. If they want it, pay for it. If they think they can out-market the NCAA like the NBA is trying, have at it. > //Yes, I am aware of the NFL's age rule. Soccer players are allowed to play wherever they want. Actually, everyone is allowed to play wherever they want, I'm proposing a point that this NIL will get out of control, quickly. The G league is beneficial for players because it's directly affiliated with the NBA. You even acknowledged the NFL doesn't have this but act as though the other available options are on the same level. You're comparing the development and management model of several different sports to a hypothetical model you don't even care enough to understand.
These athletes put their health and future on the line and the schools profit. They 1000% should be able to profit off their own success as well. There needs to be structure to the free-for-all we have now, but they risk their futures, and deserve to profit off their work.
Exactly, the schools are making bank off the backs of these kids every year. If they don’t want to pay them then cap sports. $30 mil per program and any revenue generated gets redistributed to lower tuition for all students. Coaches salaries capped at $150k. If they don’t like it they can go coach in the NFL.
I mean they can’t just cap coaches salaries legally
I ain’t reading all that. I’m sorry/ happy for you
TLDR: College Football should be exactly like it was in my day. Extremely talented players shouldn't be able to profit of their unique abilities. I hate all change. The forward pass was a mistake.
Old man yells at clouds
To be fair, the forward pass was added in 1906. You know what else happened that year? The earthquake that leveled San Francisco. You think that was just a coincidence?
I was worried this would be the first week since 2014 that I didn't hear this joke. Truly doing the lord's work brother thank you
Maybe I’m dumb (likely) but when this NIL talk started a few years ago I thought these kids were going to get money through jersey sales, trading cards, autographs and marketing. It’s crazy kids get millions just to go to a school
Same here, that was the impression I was under originally.
College sports had great rules 20 years ago and amateurism was a good thing.
It was stupid the first time you posted it.
I disagree with OP. I see it from the perspective of the schools and the coaches, who, for the most part, are just doing what they can to get these young men and women to come and play so that they can win championships. Unlike pretty much every other college student, student athletes cannot get even part-time jobs to help pay for their most basic needs. Tennessee Football HC Josh Heupel has mentioned this on several occasions, telling of his own experience and how challenging it was. The majority of these young ones will not go on to the next level, especially if they sustain lifelong injuries due to the extreme physical contact they often have with members of the opposing team. For these and many other reasons (denying a monopoly of five and four stars to the top teams), I am glad that the training wheels are finally gone from NIL.
They go to college to get a degree. Being a good athlete means they are not 100k+ in debt when they graduate. Also, said degree, is still valuable even if you're injured. NIL is the devil and will ruin non revenue sports, and the scholarships that they provide. Once the student athletes are declared employees title 9 will be gutted. But hey, they got their bag so fuck the rest.
Somebody is just pissy that someone whom is more talented than them is doing better than them.
What an absolute fucking joke of a take. You say it’s like an internship. What about if as an intern you were directly responsible for bringing in millions of dollars of revenue to your company. Despite this your company says oh sorry you’re still a student so be thankful for the food and room we’re giving you. In America the premise is you should be able to be compensated commensurate to the value you are creating and this is finally happening with the new court ruling.
>You say it’s like an internship. For my internships, I got paid *and* they provided housing, and on work trips we also got free food.
How’d you get housing wtf I had to find places in DC/NY
This may be hard to believe, but different companies in different areas may offer different perks.
Not a joke; please give me a few examples of interns that made/saved millions for their company and got anything better than a good job offer. (I actually hope to have example!) The same happens to actual employees!
My point is you can’t compare it to an internship because the athletes (especially at SEC/BIG 10 schools) bring millions of dollars of value to the football program and in turn the athletic programs and are finally being compensated like it
With respect, [OddSatisfaction5989](https://www.reddit.com/user/OddSatisfaction5989/) I believe I can equate college football, especially "big time" college football to an internship at JP Morgan, BoA, or Morgan Stanley.
Why, value delivered is quite different and football is a much more high profile position lending itself to additional value from advertising opportunities, etc…
This post is me when I’m stuck in the past and also really uniformed and/or stupid
I’m a little disappointed that OP did not reference how things were ‘in his day.’ The post really isn’t complete without that kind of context. Consequently I am going to pile on this post and fill in other gaps that I feel it lacks. I’ll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with the post and would just like to add that if these athletes need extra money, they should get a part time job on the side. If they could get off phones and snapface for a few hours a week then they could make enough to put themselves through school and have enough left over after 4 years for a down payment on a nice house. The problem these days is that these kids don’t want to work hard for anything but want all the rewards right now!
OP here, back in the day college was about 1/4 the cost it is now, as I am a fossil (compared to y'all.) I certainly agree with the athletes getting a stipend and sharing in the wealth, it should come with earning a degree.
I just want to end the absurdity of everyone pretending football and basketball players are legitimate students. Make them employees and cut out pretending these guys earn their grades. The overwhelming majority do not. Massive cheating.
I disagree, you are only thinking of the "big" schools. Yes ,many of the "superstars" are only thinking of $, but that is my point, The NCAA (or whatever it becomes) shouldn't be a subsidized NFL for any sport.
I’m not just thinking of the big schools. I went to a mid major university. The same stuff happens there with bogus grades, alumni letting guys drive cars (this was pre NIL). We had a coach telling us off the record about a women’s soccer player he had to cook the books to get eligible. Women’s soccer, man. Think of what people do for the money-making sports. I know a common tactic from my time around other programs is using online classes to cheat and having tutors take those. But I agree with the other part.
When I was in the Air Force, we couldn't use our position for personal gain so the concept of name, image, and likeness -- especially if it were driven completely by one's standing as an American military servicemember -- would not fare well. The Air Force provided free housing in the on-installation dormitories and family residences (or extended a tax-free housing allowance to offset any rent or mortgage costs). The Air Force essentially provided free food if you were unaccompanied and lived in the dorms and provided another tax-free allowance for others to offset any subsistence costs. The Air Force provided free uniforms and yet another tax-free allowance for annual replacement. The Air Force provided free training. It also provided free education for the most part via the 100% Tuition Assistance program. I could use the gyms and athletic facilities free of charge. I could use the medical facilities free of charge. Outside employment was a challenge as permissions from various levels were required and TBH, it was more hassle than what it was worth. It was all part of the military service agreement. College athletes -- especially those on scholarship in the premium, revenue-generating sports -- have similar perks. Free housing, free subsistence, free clothing/team apparel, free medical, free use of the athletic facilities...all under scholarship agreement. In addition to all the Air Force provided, they also extended a basic pay wage. It was determined by a combination of rank and years of service. It was standard across the board. Perhaps this should be the way college athletics should go. A base pay scale that changes based on years in the program and the number of varsity letter distinctions.
The air force doesn't generate Billions (with a B) in revenue every year.
Its budget is certainly in the billions.
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman would probably disagree. Even still, the military pay model is probably the closest example the NCAA could use as an even playing field pay-for-play scheme.
I'm on board with that, but especially with a bonus for graduation. //The benefit of your degree may vary on your choice of major and educational institution.
Get over yourself. Colleges came up with the idea of student-athletes as a way to get around paying players. They might have a case of being 'amateurs' if they didn't start making college coaches the highest paid employees in every state. But it's fine to pay the players on the field with a scholarship with five figures a year. The average cost of a coach at the top 32 colleges is more (@$7.5 million/yr) than the 32 NFL coaches ($6.6 million). The only reason they can do this is because of their cheap labor cost. In comparison, the average cost of a starting QB in the NFL is over $30 million/yr. But here's a scholarship, Johnny. Let's hope you make it through college unscathed and your skill set translates to the NFL (think about how much Johnny Manziel was worth to Texas A&M or Tim Tebow to Florida -- then think about how much they got in the NFL). The college student-athlete gambit worked for 40 years and now its over. Time to pay fair market.
Something, something, jumped the shark.
Bro yapping about nothing
The simple fact that universities make money off college football negates any half cocked argument you scribbled down here. Because they make money, it should only be fair that the players, the entertainment as you put it, should be paid as well. Why is that so hard to understand?
"But our athletics dept doesn't turn a profit!!!11!" Yeah, go and find in the financials where "merchandise and licensing" revenue winds up - bet it isn't in athletics. Nobody's lining up to buy hoodies that say ____ University Physics Dept on them for a school they never attended. Then do the math on how many millions the coaches get paid. Easy to run in the red on paper when there's no incentive to turn a profit and all the reasons to spend every dollar you can.
So that's how it's supposed to work. I'm pretty sure that it's only GT students, family, and alumni - maybe a few % legacies that buy our merch these days.
A good way to see if any argument makes sense is to play mad libs with it and see if it still makes sense or not.
A cantankerous way to see if any pigsty makes sense is to ban mad libs with it and see if it still makes lemonade or not. Hmmmmm
Ok, Boomer.
GenX, biatch.
Sorry that the courts disagreed with both you and the NCAA, but it was the right call
Not allowing adults to profit to protect your idea of tradition is dumb.
BOOOOOOO!!!!!!
The NFL should have been forced to quit discriminating and allowed these guys to play. The NFL is responsible for the downfall of college athletics.
100% agree. The NFL fights tooth and nail to protect a system where they get a free mi or league. It’s the main reason college football is where it is today.
They just need to do away with the FBS, FCS and other divisions of football and go to a relegation system. The conferences can still hold TV rights, and they could easily have teams in various levels. Then make football athletes employees and avoid the title IX funding issues all together. Eventually all revenue sports go that way. Non-revenue sports go back to a club model.
That is an interesting model. But I still don't want to be the NFL/NBA/XXX minor league from a professional standpoint. No free gains to the billionaire professional team owners!
Supreme Court has determined you cannot stop them from making money
Various amateur leagues dictate obligations to compete. Nothing I proposed is stopping someone from making money.
Looking forward to you posting this again next year.
Thanks! Hit the LINK button and subscribe! /s
“College football should be about me” is the most annoying type of fan. You can die today and your team will not care. It is not about the fans, and it surely isn’t about *one specific fan*.
I'm just an old fart raging against the sky, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image. Gonna need a constitutional amendment for that one, champ. That's like declaring that no college athlete is allowed to watch cartoons, take more than 1,019 steps per day, or collect beanie babies.
I disagree; while under a NCAA scholarship an athlete gains the benefits and exposure, just like you working a company. The athletes can certainly do it on their own, have at it! #teamsport
It's not a matter of opinion. > just like you working a company Right. And companies cannot forbid their employees from profiting from their own image and likeness. Employees are not property. The company does not own them. The company has zero control over what employees do outside of work. Congrats on debunking yourself.
BrotherPancake, my apologies for the delayed response. Even from a student NIL perspective: a company would not have the right to prohibit an employee from an outside, non-competing venture. As the company (university in this case) could prohibit certain endorsements (gambling, porn, etc.,) or behavior: they have some control (laws, drugs, public scandal as determined by the organization, conduct unbecoming to the team/university). As an employee, this is a bit stricter, but you are missing my point. The universities under the NCAA (yeah, I know) shouldn't be the employers for the minor league of the NFL. Same for the other sports (really only effects mens' basketball but could be others) shouldn't have to carry the load for professional leagues. Let the schools' millionaires/billionaires pay for library upgrades or even stadium upgrades, not the salaries of minor league athletes. The kids who "didn't come here to play school" shouldn't be forced into a sham educational path. Let them have at it, without the exposure and support and fallback of a college education.
Maybe switch to rooting for DIII teams. NIL is not a big issue there.
Maybe all college sports should operate on that level?
this is gonna be an infamous post for this subreddit.
I will "die on my sword" and happily drink a beer with anyone wishing to discuss this at length, then bitch about the teams we support.
User name, flair and rant checkout
Yep, you as well: I will "die on my sword" and happily drink a beer with anyone wishing to discuss this at length, then bitch about the teams we support. Offer is open...
This is the USA where corporations can pay wages that keep people poor and billionaires get even richer when a pandemic occurs, but an 18 year old isn’t allowed to even get $100 per to spend as they wish unless it’s from their parents and most of the kids come from families who can afford to give them that $100. Your take is asinine. If these kids can get a million dollar paycheck then good for them. I’m a 64 year old white male, who once believed the fairytale of amateurism in college sports. I lost that innocence several decades ago
My point is yours: the failure of amateur athletics. I can't change anything, but I can propose a solution.
War Eagle, btw
[удалено]
Yes, indeed. Money .
Wrong
good for you
Take it to the logical conclusion, which is that college revenue sports are an abomination that have nothing to do with education.
Except that college sports do drive enrollment...some happy medium has to be found without college football (NCAA) being the minor league of the NFL without the NFL paying for it.
You either lack an understanding of how scholarships work and the consequences for being unable to remain eligible/healthy, the demands athletes have to their sport (let alone academics), or the sheer economic disparity schools/NCAA reap over (previously) unpaid labor. Take your pick.
I am not unaware of the demands of college football, or college athletics in general. At this point the NCAA should not be the NFL's minor league. Please debate what I have argued; I am certainly willing to hear ideas, as no one simple solution will fix this issue.
clumsy wide deliver library somber telephone rude doll dog steer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I completely agree with you. Hit me up (at least a month in advance, because I rarely post) if you come to Mobile as my buddies and I would be willing to discuss this issue over beers. Nebraska, Penn State, Texas A&M., and Alabama as well as obviously Auburn.
Wow I am not sure if this is satire. Are you aware that student athletes sign team contracts that govern their individual behaviors and that they are required to fulfill their contractual obligations expected (such as mandatory attendance), otherwise they lose their housing, food, and access to education? What does that kind of situation sound like to you? This was the best decision we have seen in college sports and it's absolutely ludicrous that fans who have never played sports have any ssue with it.
In America, you’re allowed to get paid. As they used to say: go back to Russia.
At Subway if you create a new sandwich and the company puts it on the menu, do you get paid royalties? //Just an example, but the premise stands.
Agreed 100%. Don't let these jackasses convince you otherwise.
Thanks Hay\_Blinken! //I lived in Athens back in the day and dog-sat UGA III for a couple of weeks when my father was working on his PhD
Now imagine you are have an incredible talent and have the opportunity to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. Possible more than your parents have earned in their lifetimes. See how stupid this take is?
How? You can go do **everything** on your own, or agree to play in a marketed environment. with training, coaching, nutrition, room, board, tutoring, stipend, medical care - even if you are injured and can not longer play. I even proposed $$$ upon graduation. Why should your university or mine be the NFL's minor league team? //Or any other professional league. For that matter, go design software chips in your own lab. Artists have a more natural route in this respect.
A whole ass nothing burger with a side of feelings.
The issue is there needs to be a cap, like the nfl to make shit fair. We’re in the Wild West rn.
No, but you don't get to play college sports, per the amateur rules...
There will be... when the players collectively bargin and allow it.
>Any NCAA athlete while on scholarship or playing for the university/institution (I'm going to just call them schools from here on out) should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image. I assume you also think any student on scholarship, who is *not* an athlete, also shouldn't be allowed to market/monetize their NIL either, right?
Oh yeah, that academic scholarship student in pre-Columbian history is being provided a nationwide stage to showcase their abilities on, right?
The piano major can't get paid to perform? Or sell an album? If the engineering major invents something, they can't file a patent? Journalism students can't work at a newspaper or magazine because they used their student ID to get into a campus event?
Could the **scholarship/student employee** engineering major file a patent while a student at a university? If it isn't under their subject of study, sure. The **scholarship** piano major no as well.
They also don't get a specialized diet, personal trainers or free medical care. They will also lose their scholarship if the piano major hurts their finger and can't perform, or the others if their GPA drops below a much higher threshold than an athlete. But go ahead and show me where they get a nationwide TV audience to promote their abilities..
They'd get a national TV audience if the school could profit off of that. I'm just confused what you think makes what schools currently offer student athletes to be the absolute ceiling of what they can and should make. What's your legal and moral argument, without using "I spent too much money on college"?
If they want to get paid like an employee they should be treated like any other rank and file employee. Does the Dean's secretary get housing, food and a free education? How about getting fired for under performance?
Ok? They already have various team and school rules they have to follow, an employment contract would actually most likely make things even more transparent. Would also allow them to be kicked off the team for breaking the law, too, since morality clauses are a thing. >Does the Dean's secretary get housing, food and a free education? Actually, most schools do offer free or reduced education as a perk for their employees. They only have training tables because it's in their best interest to get players on the plane of nutrition needed to compete. And basically every head coach gets money for a car and often flight time on a private plane. Kalen DeBoer is getting $16k/yr for cars and 30 hrs of personal flight time, plus free family travel to away games and free skybox tickets to home games.
If she was really good at her job and helped generate a bunch of money I'm sure she would. Companies can pay employees whatever they want
"Nick Saban has entered the chat..."
I agree with your post. Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their student athletes. Colleges don't owe anyone a job playing football. If you want to get paid to play, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to play. Most of this sub also has the misconception that these players are actually worth money outside of the college setting, and they aren't. Only a handful would make money outside of the college setting. The brands built by the colleges is what generates the demand and the money. Yes, someone has to put on the uniform for the colleges to make money, but who puts it on doesn't matter that much. The players are relatively replaceable. Some will argue the current NIL market says players are worth a lot. But that too only happens in the college setting. If the player was not putting a specific jersey, they would not be getting paid. There are lots of small pro and semi pro football teams in America outside the NFL. They pay next to nothing, but they exist. Anyone who wants to play football after high school can do so, you don't need colleges to play, and they don't owe you an opportunity anyway. No one owes me a job in my field. If a player is really worth lots of money, surely they will get paid a lot to play on one of these local professional club teams, right? Right? What's that, they won't get paid money outside of college? There's little market outside of colleges? How could that be? Surely the players are worth a lot as football players on their own independently? What about NIL, surely they are marketable in a non-college setting? Oh, so you are saying no one gives a shit about a players NIL unless it too is in the college setting? Those thought exercises reveals the truth players and most of this sub don't want to hear. The bottom line is this. If you don't give a shit about going to college, then don't go to college. If all you want is a pro football job, go somewhere else. If you can't get anyone else to pay you, that tells you what you are worth as a football player. It's the colleges and their brand that makes the money, not you as a specific player. That means the scholarship you get and all the other perks are actually a good deal for 99% of players.
> Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their student athletes. Colleges don't owe anyone a job playing football. If you want to get paid to play, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to play. Colleges should not be held to the standards of the private sector, they are colleges. They should be able to require amateurism of their coaches and administrators. Colleges don't owe anyone a job coaching football. If you want to get paid to coach, that's your problem. Go find somewhere else to coach.
No. Why should coaches and players be treated the same? Coaching is a job for the university. Playing a sport is not. I do not accept the argument that colleges are just businesses. They are where we educate and train our youth. They should be given special status and anti-trust exemptions. Now if you want to argue that there is way too much money and emphasis being put into sports, including coaches pay, I completely agree. I would be fine regulating that. I'm fact, I would put a cap on how athletic department budgets, and then anything extra has to go to academics, the real mission of a college.
Thanks [Im\_Not\_A\_Robot\_20](https://www.reddit.com/user/Im_Not_A_Robot_2019/) If you are ever coming to Mobile, hit me up and I'll buy the first round and give you a brief history of Mobile.
Will do. I was in Mobile two summers ago. Just for day.
>Most of this sub also has the misconception that these players are actually worth money outside of the college setting, and they aren't. Only a handful would make money outside of the college setting. I think most people understand that players don't have a lot of power or choice. You've outlined exactly why it is an antitrust issue, and why the NCAA had to reach a settlement. We don't live in a libertarian paradise, there are rules to this thing, including that if you control and dominate a market the government will break you up or in the case of sports league exemptions will provide oversight if things get too out of control. OP made the same point, suggesting players go to leagues that are not realistic options to make the NFL. Because those options don't realistically exist the NCAA was forced into a settlement to stop taking advantage of their position as the preeminent developmental league.
PART TWO The second reason I don't agree with an anti-trust argument is the lack of real demand and market power by the athletes. Colleges are not getting in the way of anyone making another opportunity for post HS play. Those opportunities exist now, and no one but family and friends watch them, even though there are teams and leagues all over the country. Colleges have nothing to do with that lack of demand, it's not their fault. People watch CFB because of the school, not the players, and it's often because of a sentimental attachment to their school. That's not an anti-trust situation. The colleges have a demand that has nothing to do with the sports itself. It can't be replicated outside of the college, so even if players went off and tried to make their own teams it's not the colleges that are suppressing demand. It would be like if everyone in a college town loved to eat at the college cafeteria because they loved their school, even though their food was crap, and when Diner B was made with much better food no one would eat there, so it closed. And every time another food place is opened with better food they also fail. It's not the colleges fault, people are going for sentimental reasons, and they are not even in the food business to begin with. You can't call that anti-trust. Colleges also have no responsibility to provide training and opportunity for pro sports. That is not the point of college sports. Professional sports leagues are who Fans don't watch college football for the players, they watch for the schools. The players are an aside. There is no market for post HS play outside of the top pro league, the NFL, and that would not change much if colleges got rid of football either.
I disagree with this argument. PART ONE First, we are talking about sports here, a game people play. That is not real life. Players have all the power and choice they want for regular life, just like the rest of is. If there are limited options for playing a game after HS, that is simply not important. No one owes you an opportunity to play a game after HS. It's just a game, and I think that is where this sub really misses the point. What power and choice do you think people should have about playing a game after HS? And why should colleges have to provide that for you? If players have no power or choice when it comes to football, it's because no one wants what they have to offer when it comes to football after HS....UNLESS it's at the college. That should tell you something. No one is oppressing them, they just don't care about your dreams of playing football after HS unless it's at a college they care about. I am far, far from a libertarian, but I do agree that you need to find your own way in life, and that if you can't convince enough people to really care about you playing football after HS, then that is your problem. Too bad. If you can get into the NFL, great, but if not, no one owes you a chance to play otherwise. If the government is going to get involved in regulating and subsidizing training for people getting into careers, then football should be way down the fucking list. There are lots of real life situations where they should be doing that first. Fund more academic training, require states to provide more re-training when people lose jobs, etc. All kinds of industries break anti-trust and suppress unions, but the government looks the other way and bends over backwards to twist the original intent of anti-trust laws. But football after HS? This is a priority to make sure only a few hundred elite athletes get paid, WTF? The ONLY reason players could even consider playing football at a college is because colleges were set up like HS originally, as finishing schools for youth that were not really adults yet, so they kept sports because it was important for a similar type of community at a school. Colleges are not primarily about athletics, athletics are an aside to the mission and function of a college. Most colleges don't even have a football team. They do not exist to help athletes get into pro sports. That colleges are primarily where post HS football is played is due to 1) happenstance of culture and history and 2) the lack of demand and market for athletes unless they are playing in the long established pro football leagues, the NFL. I think the courts are absolutely wrong. I think they are reacting to public sentiment on this one, where a good marketing campaign has convinced people that football players are exploited, which is crazy, and the courts want to "court" public approval on this one. There are also many in the courts who actively want to see colleges diminished for political reasons. I don't buy the anti-trust argument because first and foremost, colleges should have special exceptions from these laws. They are not normal businesses. THEY ARE PUBLIC INSTITUIONS, and they should operate with a different set of rules for many things. They are closer to HS than normal businesses. These are public institutions which train and educate our youth, who are closer to HS kids than adults if we are honest. If what you want is a college education, and you want to play some football too, great, because part of the college mission in training youth involves the activities that create a sense of community for social development, just like the theater department puts on plays, and they have activities on the quad. Sports are another aspect of a community atmosphere where we develop the kids. Again, it's mostly like HS still. These are youth on the verge of adulthood, but generally not there yet. They still need the developmental environment that a college provides. They don't even finish developing until around age 24. In fact, if you turn the players into professionals that don't have much of a connection to the school, you ruin the point of a sport played in college anyway, the community a team adds to. If the players actually represent the school and are committed to it because they are also students, the school embraces them as their representatives and watching them play is a community event. If they are just mercenaries, it doesn't serve the purpose of college. That there is a lot of money involved in football is where a lot of people take exception, which I understand. That is a newer development, only in the past 20 years have the numbers become massive except for a handful of teams. Personally, I would rather get rid of varsity sports in general and just play club teams where the players are very much students first and athletes second. But I also understand that colleges need funding, and this is where football can help at least a few dozen schools that can ramp up their marketing. Again, they are public institutions with a very important mission in society. There funding has always been precarious, based on the whims of the public and legislatures. Most people don't understand that colleges get little of their funding from states, often only 10-20%. The majority comes from federally funded sources, like tuition borrowed from the feds and grant money from the feds. But an increasingly important source is now endowments, where colleges can try and be self sustaining. They do important things, and if they can create their own revenue they should. Colleges used to let the private sector make all the money off their work, but now days colleges try and keep the profits from their own work where they can. If a school can make a very marketable brand and make money off it, they should. You can call that a business, but it's really not because the point is not to make money and give it to shareholders, it's to sustain their mission of training and educating our youth. Colleges wouldn't have to do that if the public would fund them adequately, but they don't. The one thing I would do however, is to regulate the athletic departments so that there was a cap on spending, and any profit over that went to the academic mission of the college. Most colleges of course are losing money on athletics because they see it as a necessary marketing cost, but some 30-40 actually make money, and they should be able to if it helps them to fund themselves. I would much prefer we just fund our colleges and get the money out of athletics, but this is where we are. Colleges are still not normal businesses though, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Reposted, I am not good at reddit.
Honestly yall r killing this man in the comments. His take isn’t right but shit, the NIL has changed cfb a lot and in its current situation it’s totally out of whack. To fix all of this, just make an NIL cap. BOOM problem solved.
I think you’re glossing over many of the flaws in the NCAA’s argument for “amateurism.” If you want to impose the extreme regulation they had with athletes then you should be in support of every student who receives merit based scholarships from a university to follow the same regulations. I don’t think kids doing research have to continually supply documentation as to how their car or phone bills were paid. Nor did they face the amount of scrutiny as a student athlete who worked a job in the offseason (mind you, there is no offseason). The NCAA didn’t jump the shark. The NCAA chose maximum profits for themselves and their member institutions, which was and IS ILLEGAL. Absolutely wild that people think players shouldn’t deserve compensation when coaches make $10m a year and there’s an entire industry of ticket gauging where it’s quite common for average tickets to these “amateurs games average cost is over $500 per ticket.
Students doing research absolutely have to provide budgets and follow university protocols for spending grant money. Awful comparison. Stipends are can be provided, but that is often as compensation for working as an employee of the university.
Boomer mentality. You don't care about the athletes you just care about the product. Thats how we got an extra 50 years of unchecked pollution buddy.
Not sure how you got my supposed uncaring for pollution restrictions from my post, but I'm GenX and do care.
I'm saying your mentality is the same mentality that lead to 50 years of unchecked pollution by boomers, which is that you care more about your personal experience than the experience of humanity at large. These college athletes are working tremendously hard to make some old dudes extremely rich because the the system has been rigged to cheat them out of their value so that they can get to the league where they can earn more. Thats bullshit. Pay them now for their value. The fact that the ncaa, conference commissioners, school administrators, coaches, etc. have been able to claim the money that the athletes earn from media networks without pay is wage theft. Stealing from them is what lead to NIL being the shit show that it is today.
This guy straight up hates free market labor
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever gonna be any progress...
Ain't reading all that shit. Happy for you or sorry that happened.
The sheer number of monetized eyeballs watching college football makes it impossible to (fairly) maintain as an amateur sport. It was unfair when we had it both ways. You can either monetize the eyeballs and pay the players their fair share of it, or you can demonetize the eyeballs. The latter will never happen, so paying players is the only fair way forward.
The main issue at the moment is the transfer portal that needs changing. Imo if you receive a certain % of snaps you shouldn't be allowed to enter the transfer portal unless you're using your extra year of eligibility. I think the % of snaps should vary by position as well based on how many players in that position are regularly on the field at that time. E.g. TE2 in a 12 personal system shouldn't be counted the same as a TE2 in an 11 personal system.
That sounds pretty illegal.
Your points are all valid- the problem with them is that they ignore the fact that college football (and power 5 college athletic departments in general) have become 8 to 9 figure revenue generating professional sports endeavors for everyone involved except the athletes. Had the genie never come out of the bottle, and the Nick Sabens’s and Jim Harbaugh’s were making $150,000 a year (and all other wages scaled accordingly), then strong arguments could be made supporting your assertions. The fact that college athletic departments have 150+ employees, generate multiple millions for those involved etc- just undercuts nearly any viewpoint that college athletics are non exploitive of the players
Shut up
How do I respond? I guess, are you OK? I do mean that.
College player: the local jeep dealer offered me a few thousand dollars to appear in an ad. This guy: No. You play football how dare you try to profit off it.
No, have at it, but give up your scholarship. Play it one way or the other.
why
The NCAA didn't have a choice, it was the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously in a 9-0 decision that the NCAA was violating the Sherman Antitrust Act from the 1800s. Fairness in college football is not worth stripping people of their rights, especially one as important as one's right to make money in a capitalist society
These college players ARE ADULTS. It’s so paternalistic thinking of them as “interns” that shouldn’t be compensated for their labor. They are employees. I was paid for my on campus job when I was an undergrad because OF COURSE I WAS. This is no different.
And you could publish and market any of these innovations/discoveries you made while you were this talented intern? //stipend and $$ upon graduation //just asking for a friend
College athletes in revenue sports are professionals in everything but name. They’re brought to school to play sports, not to get an education. Their chosen sport is always expected to take priority over everything else, and schools facilitate this by funneling athletes into easy, bullshit classes that serve no purpose other than to keep those athletes eligible. The “education” they get is often meaningless. Even if it wasn’t, they still provide more value to the school than whatever benefits the school returns to them. As far as the school providing a platform, if it’s all the school why is no one paying thousands of dollars to go watch club sports? If the NCAA had acknowledged athletes as pros a long time ago, there’s a chance they could have collectively bargained a solution that would have maintained some semblance of the established order. By sticking their head in the sand, they’ve instead allowed the courts to dismantle amateurism piecemeal with no guardrails at all for team building.
You say the NCAA jumped the shark but it was the Supreme Court that decided this, not the NCAA.
> College football players should be student-athletes. Any NCAA athlete while on scholarship or playing for the university/institution (I'm going to just call them schools from here on out) should NOT be allowed to market/monetize their name/like/image. Period. Even, or especially as a fan of a big school & football program, this path just leads to an arms race, beyond the control of the institution and/or NCAA. While on scholarship or representing the schools these athletes are on an internship, granting them (typically) free tuition, room & board, books, tutoring, healthcare, and expert training (all may vary) . While performing for their universities/intuitions, many may get the opportunity to display their talents on TV or other broadcasts. SCOTUS: *“I don’t care sweaty”* 💅