The Grand Issue with the NCAA


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby JumboElliott » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:53 pm

DrJay wrote:Good five part story on money, academic cheating, drugs, and sex at OK St football in Sports Illustrated, part 1 in the mag this week, parts 2-4 online, part 5 in next week's mag. Could substitute most good NCAA DI schools for OK St, I reckon. What a farce. I enjoy a good football game, but frankly at this point, don't really care what happens to NCAA football.

College football and to a lesser extent, basketball are societal cancers and they bring out just about everything that is bad about humanity.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:45 am

I read the time magazine article 2 weeks ago. It suggested paying football and basketball players amounts as high as $30,000 a year. I had to laugh because there are so many things wrong with that thought process.

For starters, if you think the graduation rate among athletes is bad now, wait until they are being paid $30,000 a year. With such payments, a significant number of them will completely loose focus of the real reason they are in college.

Secondly, lawsuits will ensue if you pay football $30,000 and do not pay softball players. There will be claims of gender discrimination. And I am not sure such payments would comply with title IX

And if colleges have to pay money to students in non income generating sports, then college sports as we know it could be ending. Most colleges simply cannot afford that.

Such a scenario will also create a ludicrous scenario where high school prospects hire agents to negotiate their payment.

There will be a huge disparity between how much players are paid. if Johnny Manziel is getting paid $30,000 and his center is getting paid a measly $3000, that resentment could cause said center to miss a few blocks and Manziel will be leveled by a menacing linebacker.

My take is that college athletes already get enough benefits. I agree that schools should not use the likeness of a player in video games after said player is no longer a student athlete. But this idea that schools exploit players does not wash. Most student athletes get a lot more from the school than they give it. At schools like Notre Dame for example many students graduate with student debt around $50,000. Meanwhile an obscure no-name offensive tackle goes to school free, gets free meals and all kinds of perks, networking opportunities, meets all kinds of girls, gets extra tutoring............................
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby booond » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:59 am

kamikaze7 wrote:My take is that college athletes already get enough benefits. I agree that schools should not use the likeness of a player in video games after said player is no longer a student athlete. But this idea that schools exploit players does not wash. Most student athletes get a lot more from the school than they give it. At schools like Notre Dame for example many students graduate with student debt around $50,000. Meanwhile an obscure no-name offensive tackle goes to school free, gets free meals and all kinds of perks, networking opportunities, meets all kinds of girls, gets extra tutoring............................


You could've skipped all the strawmen and gone to the money quote. It's on the backs of those obscure offensive linemen that has propelled Notre Dame to its fame. There'd be no huge campus, no touchdown jesus, no contract with NBC and no billions without those obscure linemen who in return get a potential education. My guess is if given the choice of the billions or paying a few pennies for the obscure linemen they'll pay.
booond
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:25 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:36 pm

booond wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:My take is that college athletes already get enough benefits. I agree that schools should not use the likeness of a player in video games after said player is no longer a student athlete. But this idea that schools exploit players does not wash. Most student athletes get a lot more from the school than they give it. At schools like Notre Dame for example many students graduate with student debt around $50,000. Meanwhile an obscure no-name offensive tackle goes to school free, gets free meals and all kinds of perks, networking opportunities, meets all kinds of girls, gets extra tutoring............................


You could've skipped all the strawmen and gone to the money quote. It's on the backs of those obscure offensive linemen that has propelled Notre Dame to its fame. There'd be no huge campus, no touchdown jesus, no contract with NBC and no billions without those obscure linemen who in return get a potential education. My guess is if given the choice of the billions or paying a few pennies for the obscure linemen they'll pay.


Because you have no valid responses to my points you call them strawman arguments. :)
ND football can exist and thrive with or without most of those players. The notion that an individual player or player(s) is responsible for the billions Notre Dame makes is ludicrous. Players are simply replaceable parts. Very few players are a brand unto themselves. People tune in to watch schools. Rarely is an individual player such as draw that people will tune in just to watch him.

The brand name of ND and its alumni network are mostly responsible for the billions ND makes. The idea that an ND offensive tackle is responsible for the NBC contract or the huge campus is laughable at best. If ND had to depend on its players who are not that good, the best they could get is a local TV contract. You can forget an NBC contract. Clearly alumni connections are what makes ND thrive. I cannot remember the last time ND had marquee player who can draw TV audiences on his own.

Without the alumni networks, few college programs could actually make money. These ND players should be thankful that they go to school free while their classmates will graduate with $50,000 in student debt while others work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
And those from big conference schools should even be more thankful: In addition to getting free tuition and other perks, they are given under the table money amounting to thousands per game.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby booond » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:57 pm

If Notre Dame suddenly strung up a succession of 4-7 seasons, viewers would stop watching, ad revenues would dry up, NBC would walk away and the University would fire coaches and ADs. It would take a long time for it to hurt the bottom line but there is no doubt that Notre Dame's reputation was built on the backs of offensive linemen and if those offensive linemen went away so would some of the reputation Notre Dame's built.
booond
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:25 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby 18.99s » Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:31 pm

kamikaze7 wrote:I read the time magazine article 2 weeks ago. It suggested paying football and basketball players amounts as high as $30,000 a year. I had to laugh because there are so many things wrong with that thought process.

For starters, if you think the graduation rate among athletes is bad now, wait until they are being paid $30,000 a year. With such payments, a significant number of them will completely loose focus of the real reason they are in college.


If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:10 am

booond wrote:If Notre Dame suddenly strung up a succession of 4-7 seasons, viewers would stop watching, ad revenues would dry up, NBC would walk away and the University would fire coaches and ADs. It would take a long time for it to hurt the bottom line but there is no doubt that Notre Dame's reputation was built on the backs of offensive linemen and if those offensive linemen went away so would some of the reputation Notre Dame's built.


First off you are mistaken if you think the NBC contract is exists because of how the players perform. If such contracts were based on performance, ND would never have such a lucrative contract. The school has never won a national championship in decades. The last time they won, almost none of the current ND students had been born including the grad students. ND got that contract again because of their alumni network and their brand name. The alumni happen to have strong connections in the right places.

Secondly the strong alumni network will not allow Notre Dame to have successive 4-7 seasons. The reason ND can recruit decent players and have excellent facilities is precisely because of their alumni network donates big money and gets the school lucrative contracts.

Notre Dame thrives financially because its brand name is valuable and because of its extremely strong alumni network. Players come and go. Players are replaceable. If the current group of players do not want to play anymore, ND will simply recruit others.

ND also thrives because they are polarizing. They have a huge loyal fan base all over the country who wants to see them win. But there are also a huge number of fans out there who want to watch them loose. That makes for compelling TV.

The players did not build the loyal fan base. Most fans have been ND supporters long before these players were born.
The players did not make ND polarizing. ND has been hated and loved in equal measure for decades.
The players did not build the ND brand name. The players did not create the NBC contract by their performance. In fact the players benefit by appearing on TV more often than if they went to other schools.

And most importantly : People do not pay hefty prices for tickets or watch ND because of any individual player. They do because they feel a sense of loyalty to the school.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Marlow » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:12 am

kamikaze7 wrote:First off you are mistaken if you think the NBC contract is exists because of how the players perform.

I would like to contradict your contradiction. The Notre Dame contract exists because of the EXPECTATION of a successful ND campaign. Hope springs eternal in the Irish breast. Every year they rate highly in the recruiting wars, and the ND faithful are thinking THIS is the year of our resurrection. If ND football truly fell into the wasteheap of history, the contract would be severely devalued. But, as you DO point out, that is unlikely to happen, given the nature of their Booster Nation.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby athleticshushmail » Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:19 am

In my opinion, college students should not be paid to play children's games. It sends the wrong message. College students are not paid to go to class, they should not be paid to go to a football field. It's sending the message that the football field is more important than the classroom.
athleticshushmail
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:22 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:01 pm

athleticshushmail wrote:In my opinion, college students should not be paid to play children's games. It sends the wrong message. College students are not paid to go to class, they should not be paid to go to a football field. It's sending the message that the football field is more important than the classroom.


That's a fine premise and deserves some consideration. However, the reality is that right now we have a system where the only people involved with college football and basketball whose sports-related income is limited are the athletes themselves. Schools, coaches, administrators, endowments, vendors, networks, etc., are all pulling in money according to the whims of the market while players are given sermons about the virtue of "amateur" eligibility.

Since we're track fans, it also is worth mentioning that all other sports (including XC/T&F) are dependent on the department's football and basketball-generated revenue (including donor money no doubt spurred by the big 2 sports, and Conference or NCAA TV money). Take away the non-revenue sports and the number of schools that make money on athletics would change dramatically, I imagine.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gm » Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:51 pm

KevinM wrote:Since we're track fans, it also is worth mentioning that all other sports (including XC/T&F) are dependent on the department's football and basketball-generated revenue (including donor money no doubt spurred by the big 2 sports, and Conference or NCAA TV money).


Not quite.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:41 pm

gm wrote:
KevinM wrote:Since we're track fans, it also is worth mentioning that all other sports (including XC/T&F) are dependent on the department's football and basketball-generated revenue (including donor money no doubt spurred by the big 2 sports, and Conference or NCAA TV money).


Not quite.


Care to elaborate?
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Daisy » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:45 pm

18.99s wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:I read the time magazine article 2 weeks ago. It suggested paying football and basketball players amounts as high as $30,000 a year. I had to laugh because there are so many things wrong with that thought process.

For starters, if you think the graduation rate among athletes is bad now, wait until they are being paid $30,000 a year. With such payments, a significant number of them will completely loose focus of the real reason they are in college.


If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.

I've always thought that this is the way to go. The reality of student sport at this level is that there is no time to study. So they are not getting the supposed education that is advertised.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gm » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:00 pm

KevinM wrote:
gm wrote:
KevinM wrote:Since we're track fans, it also is worth mentioning that all other sports (including XC/T&F) are dependent on the department's football and basketball-generated revenue (including donor money no doubt spurred by the big 2 sports, and Conference or NCAA TV money).


Not quite.


Care to elaborate?


You're painting with a very broad brush and it's just not true at a lot of NCAA D1 institutions. The budgets for "all other sports" are absolutely NOT dependent on football or basketball revenue. In many cases, student athletic fees pay the bills.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:20 pm

gm wrote:
KevinM wrote:
gm wrote:
KevinM wrote:Since we're track fans, it also is worth mentioning that all other sports (including XC/T&F) are dependent on the department's football and basketball-generated revenue (including donor money no doubt spurred by the big 2 sports, and Conference or NCAA TV money).


Not quite.


Care to elaborate?


You're painting with a very broad brush and it's just not true at a lot of NCAA D1 institutions. The budgets for "all other sports" are absolutely NOT dependent on football or basketball revenue. In many cases, student athletic fees pay the bills.


You're right, of course, and I should have mentioned that (and I question whether even that should be necessary given the rising costs of college educations).
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:10 am

Marlow wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:First off you are mistaken if you think the NBC contract is exists because of how the players perform.

I would like to contradict your contradiction. The Notre Dame contract exists because of the EXPECTATION of a successful ND campaign. Hope springs eternal in the Irish breast. Every year they rate highly in the recruiting wars, and the ND faithful are thinking THIS is the year of our resurrection. If ND football truly fell into the wasteheap of history, the contract would be severely devalued. But, as you DO point out, that is unlikely to happen, given the nature of their Booster Nation.


I think you missed my point: There is no way that Notre Dame deserves that lucrative NBC contract based on player performance. If the performance of the players was the key factor in determining who gets lucrative contracts that Notre Dame would never be in the top 10 contracts. They did not get that huge contract because hope springs eternal as you claim.

I am not challenging the fact that a few bad seasons could put the contract in jeopardy. I am challenging the idea that player performance is what got them the contract. Notre dame did not have to be very good to get the contract and they do not have to be really good to keep the contract.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:14 am

If it were up to me then schools would use any extra football cash to alleviate the pain of tuition costs which are busy draining bank accounts and forcing students to drop out of good schools. But we live in a capitalist society so..........

The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:23 am

18.99s wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:I read the time magazine article 2 weeks ago. It suggested paying football and basketball players amounts as high as $30,000 a year. I had to laugh because there are so many things wrong with that thought process.

For starters, if you think the graduation rate among athletes is bad now, wait until they are being paid $30,000 a year. With such payments, a significant number of them will completely loose focus of the real reason they are in college.


If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.


Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well. I seriously doubt that schools can afford 5 year scholarships especially for sports that do not generate income.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Marlow » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:56 am

kamikaze7 wrote:Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.

??!! There are many academic scholarships that cover all "4 years". We often have students graduate with $200,000 (or more!) academic scholarships in hand.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gm » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:56 am

kamikaze7 wrote:The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?


I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby 18.99s » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:14 pm

kamikaze7 wrote:
18.99s wrote:If they're going to be paid a salary like that, the scholarships would have to be handled differently. Give each player 5 years tuition and room & board, but let them choose how and when to use it (subject to a time limit like 10 years). So they can start studying entirely after their 4 years of playing are done, or study part-time or full-time while playing in order to graduate sooner. That probably would result in higher graduation rates than the current system, at least among those who don't go to the NFL or NBA.


Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.


Whatever. So give 1 year of scholarship for each season on the team, with an extra year for those who've played 4 seasons. That doesn't change my point, which is to award the scholarships as a separate benefit which can be used after their playing days are done, instead of an obligation that must be enforced while they're playing.

I seriously doubt that schools can afford 5 year scholarships especially for sports that do not generate income.

I'm talking about doing this only for the money sports -- football and men's basketball. And only for a subset of colleges, definitely less than 50 and maybe only 30. There would be a separate division just for the elite 30 or 40 teams in those sports, with membership criteria to include certain levels of profitability (and absolutely no subsidies from student fees or other university funds), and other sports at the same schools would remain in the regular NCAA Division 1 with the same old rules against paying the players.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:18 am

Marlow wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:Student athletes are guaranteed a scholarship for only one year. Whether it gets renewed for 4 years depends on performance. That is true for academic scholarships as well.

??!! There are many academic scholarships that cover all "4 years". We often have students graduate with $200,000 (or more!) academic scholarships in hand.


Of course there are exceptions. But I think most academic scholarships are renewed only if a student keeps the required grades.
I had an academic scholarship that was renewed on a semester by semester basis contingent on getting the required grades. I think its insane to give anyone guaranteed scholarships when they are failing and there may be other deserving students.
I am curious to find out from you exactly which schools offer academic scholarships and the student is not required to maintain their scholarship.
Last edited by kamikaze7 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:20 am

gm wrote:
kamikaze7 wrote:The most ludicrous salaries are paid not to coaches but to bowl executives:

According to USA today :

Thirteen bowl executives make more than $240,000 annually, including three bowl officials who make more than $500,000 a year, according to salary figures obtained by the Sports Business Journal.

Outback Bowl president/CEO Jim McVay heads the list, earning $808,032 a year, followed by Allstate Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan ($645,386) and Chick-fil-A Bowl president/CEO Gary Stokan ($504,444).


And this is for perhaps a month of work ?


I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...


I just dont see how organizing one game and the events around it is worth a salary of $800,000. People who organize entire seasons make way less than that. To me it seems like it happens because these people can set their own salaries.

If I had sway in a company that is sponsoring a bowl event, most of them money generated would be donated towards the general scholarship fund for the schools involved.
Last edited by kamikaze7 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:34 am

18.99s wrote:
Whatever. So give 1 year of scholarship for each season on the team, with an extra year for those who've played 4 seasons. That doesn't change my point, which is to award the scholarships as a separate benefit which can be used after their playing days are done, instead of an obligation that must be enforced while they're playing.

Less than 10% of football programs actually make money. Kindly explain where the money for the 5th year of scholarships will come from. As it is right now, most football programs are taking subsidies. According to the link below, student tuition actually subsidises football programs. Will students be asked to fork over even more tuition for the athletes 5th year ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... s/2142443/

Also, giving deferred benefits is not as easy as you make it seem. There is only so much space available on residential halls. A school would have to house the current football team plus those who have acrued benefits, whose total number will be in the hundreds.
And giving real money so that students can rent off campus housing is not financially viable. Its easy to give a benefit like free room and board but a real financial benefit is not viable for most schools, amid budget cuts.
Finally, by definition, an NCAA athlete must be one who is attending classes NOW. Not later as you are suggesting but NOW. An NCAA athlete must be one who is enrolled at the school and is actively taking classes. They cannot defer the classes to a later time. If they do then they are by definition professional athletes and thus not eligible for NCAA. What this means is that deferring tuition assistance as you are suggesting is not an option. The free tuition benefit must be used while they are playing.



I'm talking about doing this only for the money sports -- football and men's basketball. And only for a subset of colleges, definitely less than 50 and maybe only 30. There would be a separate division just for the elite 30 or 40 teams in those sports, with membership criteria to include certain levels of profitability (and absolutely no subsidies from student fees or other university funds), and other sports at the same schools would remain in the regular NCAA Division 1 with the same old rules against paying the players.


If you do this for only 30 schools then you havent really solve the issue have you ?

Secondly if you restrict such benefits to football and mens basketball then you open yourself to lawsuits based on gender discrimination. Remember that title IX is very open to interpratation. A judge could easily side with the lawsuit which is why schools are wary of giving certain benefits only to football or basketball.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby lonewolf » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:59 am

The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby 18.99s » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:27 am

kamikaze7 wrote:Less than 10% of football programs actually make money.

So restrict the elite league to the 10% that make money (or less).

Kindly explain where the money for the 5th year of scholarships will come from.

The same place it's coming from now. They ALREADY have several players on scholarship for 5 years.

A school would have to house the current football team plus those who have acrued benefits, whose total number will be in the hundreds.

There would be no additional burden on student housing. Players who aren't studying would have to live off campus and pay rent from their salary, just like what minor league athletes in various sports already do.

And giving real money so that students can rent off campus housing is not financially viable. Its easy to give a benefit like free room and board but a real financial benefit is not viable for most schools, amid budget cuts.

If they're not making enough money to pay players at least $25,000/year, they can't afford to be in the elite division I'm talking about. There are already about 40 colleges that pay their head football coach over $2 million/year. If each got a pay cut of $1.5 million, that's enough money to pay 50 players $30,000 each.

Finally, by definition, an NCAA athlete must be one who is attending classes NOW. Not later as you are suggesting but NOW. An NCAA athlete must be one who is enrolled at the school and is actively taking classes. They cannot defer the classes to a later time. If they do then they are by definition professional athletes and thus not eligible for NCAA. What this means is that deferring tuition assistance as you are suggesting is not an option. The free tuition benefit must be used while they are playing.

You're talking about the existing rules. Obviously the rules would have to change if they did what I was proposing.

If you do this for only 30 schools then you havent really solve the issue have you ?

It solves most of it. The players who want money and are worth it can find a spot in the elite division, while the rest either aren't good enough or don't care enough about making money while playing.

Secondly if you restrict such benefits to football and mens basketball then you open yourself to lawsuits based on gender discrimination. Remember that title IX is very open to interpratation. A judge could easily side with the lawsuit which is why schools are wary of giving certain benefits only to football or basketball.

So set up the team as a separate entity that isn't part of the school, but is only contracted with the school for using the school's stadiums/arenas and scholarships. There already have been minor league pro teams in basketball and soccer that use college campuses as their home field; that didn't make the college have to pay their female NCAA players.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Dutra5 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:06 pm

lonewolf wrote:The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.


My guess is it would spend so much time in court it would never get off the ground.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby kamikaze7 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 6:02 pm

@18.99
Long story short, your solution is to end college football as we know it and turn it into a professional league that is open only to the 20 or so schools that make money.
According to you, Players will no longer be student athletes. They will no longer be expected to attend classes while they play.
Finally, your system calls for a separate entity that is not related to the school but exists only to play football.
In essence you want to create a minor leg for the NFL with the difference being that players can only play for 4 years.
If this is what your idea is then there is nothing original about it. Someone on this thread has already mentioned that there should be minor leagues in football.
None of your ideas have anything to do with college football. You should have just said it in one sentence. "Replace college football with a minor league".
However the idea that schools, whose focus is supposed to be academics will create a minor league with players who don't attend school but are real professionals and play for teams that exist only to play football is a non-starter. Good luck with that one.
kamikaze7
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:05 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby j-a-m » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:46 am

Great article by Sally Jenkins, linked on the front page.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Daisy » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:25 am

kamikaze7 wrote:However the idea that schools, whose focus is supposed to be academics

Which why I'm in favour of blowing up the whole NCAA money machine. They are a distraction from the mission of these institutions. If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Marlow » Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:57 am

Daisy wrote:If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.

How would the baby NOT be thrown out with the bath? They are inextricably intertwined.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Daisy » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:08 am

Marlow wrote:
Daisy wrote:If they want to support student athletes, fine. If they want to make money, do it as an independent entity.

How would the baby NOT be thrown out with the bath? They are inextricably intertwined.

Which baby are you talking about? $$$$$ for sports administrators, donation/bribes to endowment funds, athlete development or athlete exploitation. I guess it depends on your perspective which baby you want to save.

The ridiculousness of the NCAA is seen when they are out there rapping the knuckles of the CalTech sports program. And by the way, they get along just fine without a football program.
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby DrJay » Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:54 am

gm wrote:I gather you have never been in charge of putting on a major event...

I met Dave Johnson, Penn Relays Director, at the OT last year. Asked him how many weeks of work the Relays are for him each year. He said, "About 56, with 14 of them in April."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby gh » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:06 pm

and he's thrilled that his workload has gone down so much since he left T&FN :mrgreen:
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gleason » Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:12 pm

lonewolf wrote:The problem with paying amatuer athletes, deserved or not, is so complex you can just forget it. .. It has about the same degree of difficulty as the Syrian crisis.. or global warming.

I agree, but here is one possible solution. "Student athletes" have no medical insurance after they complete their eligibility, so why not use some profit from NCAA video games for football and basketball to provide medical insurance in those sports?

These video games use the "likeness" of famous athletes but not their names. For example when Robert Griffin III played quarterback for Baylor, the video games had an African American quarterback at Baylor who was an excellent runner. Any university mentioned in the video game would receive medical insurance for players who played in that year.

I was a student when public universities were free in the 1960s, so now athletic scholarships are a form of payment. Remember when Tianna Madison waited until January 9, 2006 to accept $60,000 pay for her World Championship win in the Long Jump? She had been a freshman at Tennesee if my memory is accurate, so she gave up three years of an athletic scholarship to turn pro.
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Don Babbitt » Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:40 am

This is all very interesting discussion, but I think the big issue with "pay for play: is Title IX. The numbers will have to equal out, and all the revenue sports are on the men's side of the equation. How will this get balanced?
Don Babbitt
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:26 am

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gleason » Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:06 pm

Don Babbitt wrote:This is all very interesting discussion, but I think the big issue with "pay for play: is Title IX. The numbers will have to equal out, and all the revenue sports are on the men's side of the equation. How will this get balanced?

Fair point. The money would be sport specific, so any sport that generates profit from a video game would have money for medical insurance. For example, if "NCAA Women's Basketball" were a video game that generated profit, some of that profit could go to medical insurance for women who had completed their eligibility and had injuries related to playing NCAA basketball.
Title IX doesn't require that all scholarship athletes have full equality - such as appearing on national TV.
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby Gebrucilassie » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:57 am

I have long been against paying College football players. I know it is old and cliched, but not having to pay for school while "interviewing" for a future job should be more than enough. Ask the average student saddled with years of student debt if they believe football players are being exploited. Without the opportunity of playing college football most would NEVER see a playing field on Sundays.
Gebrucilassie
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby TN1965 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:13 am

TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The Grand Issue with the NCAA

Postby KevinM » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:24 pm

TN1965 wrote:Here is some "food for thought"... :)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--how ... 51785.html


That's a fantastic story - thanks for posting.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Master Po, Mighty Favog and 15 guests