Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Total evisceration of every argument against compensating players.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0[/youtube]

We need to stop pointing guns at athlete's heads and forcing them to be on athletic scholarships. Let them have the choice of financing college through loans, grants, scholarships, and family like everyone else. Of course that won't happen because then there'd be a mass exodus from athletic scholarships because there are more scholarship athletes wishing they were regular students than vice versa.

Pwns wrote:We need to stop pointing guns at athlete's heads and forcing them to be on athletic scholarships. Let them have the choice of financing college through loans, grants, scholarships, and family like everyone else. Of course that won't happen because then there'd be a mass exodus from athletic scholarships because there are more scholarship athletes wishing they were regular students than vice versa.

well, grants and stipends are exactly what supports quite a lot of "normal" students' tuition. a lot of marching bands pay their band members to perform at halftime and that's ok, but not ok for someone to pay somone to play football. why?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Total evisceration of every argument against compensating players.

I like JO a lot and will have to give this a watch, but I'm guessing he didn't.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:We need to stop pointing guns at athlete's heads and forcing them to be on athletic scholarships. Let them have the choice of financing college through loans, grants, scholarships, and family like everyone else. Of course that won't happen because then there'd be a mass exodus from athletic scholarships because there are more scholarship athletes wishing they were regular students than vice versa.

well, grants and stipends are exactly what supports quite a lot of "normal" students' tuition. a lot of marching bands pay their band members to perform at halftime and that's ok, but not ok for someone to pay somone to play football. why?

Are these undergraduates? Not many undergrads get anything beyond cost of attendance. The only ones that do are ones that have on-campus jobs, and those usually are a very small portion of the student population.

And why must athletes get paid?

This is my main problem with paying players…paying revenue sport athletes and not non-revenue sport athletes will never pass the Title IX PC test, so schools will have to pay stipends to athletes in sports that don't generate money. On top of that athletics loses its tax-exempt status. These things mean schools are going to have to cut costs, and like I said in the thread about athletics tax deductions, when they have to cut costs it won't be investments in football and MBB that get cut. I don't like the idea of non-revenue sports being put on the chopping block just so we can feel warm and fuzzy and pat ourselves on the back about how we aren't "exploiting" football and MBB players.

Do you think the non-revenue sport athletes whose scholarships get cut because of stipends will be overjoyed that student athletes no longer have to suffer without any stipend?

Pwns wrote: Are these undergraduates?

Yes, many marching bands offer stipends in addition to scholarships that cover tuition.
https://www.google.com/search?q=marchin ... 3&ie=UTF-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pwns wrote:This is my main problem with paying players…paying revenue sport athletes and not non-revenue sport athletes will never pass the Title IX PC test, so schools will have to pay stipends to athletes in sports that don't generate money. On top of that athletics loses its tax-exempt status. These things mean schools are going to have to cut costs, and like I said in the thread about athletics tax deductions, when they have to cut costs it won't be investments in football and MBB that get cut. I don't like the idea of non-revenue sports being put on the chopping block just so we can feel warm and fuzzy and pat ourselves on the back about how we aren't "exploiting" football and MBB players.

Do you think the non-revenue sport athletes whose scholarships get cut because of stipends will be overjoyed that student athletes no longer have to suffer without any stipend?

I think Title IX is a disaster and I would be happy to scrap it.

I don't think all NCAA athletes should be paid, but athletes should be able to get a small piece of the multi-billion dollar pie that is created on their backs.

Pwns wrote:We need to stop pointing guns at athlete's heads and forcing them to be on athletic scholarships. Let them have the choice of financing college through loans, grants, scholarships, and family like everyone else. Of course that won't happen because then there'd be a mass exodus from athletic scholarships because there are more scholarship athletes wishing they were regular students than vice versa.

As usual you completely miss the point

You can get rid of Title IX if:

You agree that anything given to an athlete is taxable income (schollies, etc)
All programs must pay taxes on revenue, property taxes, etc.
All programs must purchase their own facilities - none can be on public land, and can not be subsidized in any way.
No student fees are allowed for athletics.
Athletic teams must pay a fair market licencing fee to the University for using trademarked logos, colors, etc.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone lay out a plan for paying players. Anyone?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Total evisceration of every argument against compensating players.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0[/youtube]

This was great.

89Hen wrote:I don't think I've ever heard anyone lay out a plan for paying players. Anyone?

There have been several proposed ideas
But the NCAA wants to keep all the money - and why not - its free labor

College Football and Basketball are without question professional sports with free athletes

who wouldn't want to keep that deal going

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote:I don't think I've ever heard anyone lay out a plan for paying players. Anyone?

There have been several proposed ideas

Haven't seen them.

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:We need to stop pointing guns at athlete's heads and forcing them to be on athletic scholarships. Let them have the choice of financing college through loans, grants, scholarships, and family like everyone else. Of course that won't happen because then there'd be a mass exodus from athletic scholarships because there are more scholarship athletes wishing they were regular students than vice versa.

As usual you completely miss the point

As usual, Pwns hit the point, square. You think he missed because you don't agree.

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
As usual you completely miss the point

As usual, Pwns hit the point, square. You think he missed because you don't agree.

No he missed the point entirely...
Nobody is debating how Student Athletes are forced into anything
The debate is about two things:

1)
The NCAA uses college basketball and football players likeness to profit on video games to the score of tens of millions of dollars - and has absolutely no profit sharing for the very focal point of the profit center - players could be payed AFTER they graduate (Right..?)

That's ^ slimy by anybody's standards...

2)
The NCAA has the kids sign an employee contract with 400 pages of conduct and stipulations associated with performance etc. etc. (clearly an employee contract) and refuses to admit that is what it is

Chizzang wrote:The NCAA uses college basketball and football players likeness to profit on video games to the score of tens of millions of dollars

At least they used to. But do you think giving a football player a $2000 stipend solves anything?

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The NCAA uses college basketball and football players likeness to profit on video games to the score of tens of millions of dollars

At least they used to. But do you think giving a football player a $2000 stipend solves anything?

I don't know... How about $25,000..?

What I do know is the NCAA is a collection of con artists and their extremely vocal protest of giving the Athletes due credit is so loud and scripted that it strikes me is "Me doth think you protest TOO much"

Agreed on the NCAA.

What really ought to happen is that we need to stop calling these players "students" and start paying them. Then we can call the sport what it really is- university sponsored professional football. Or we can continue to call it FBS. Whatever.

Everybody else who is not interested in being whores to the money and understand what collegiate athletics is truly about can continue to play against other like minded schools that agree that the engineering department is more important than the football team. We could put an across the board spending cap on football and basketball programs that would avoid any future dick measuring contests.

Yep. USC, Florida, and their like should play in a separate conference of their own funded by the NFL. The NCAA doesn't serve any purpose beneficial to anybody but themselves and should be taxed as the for-profit operation they are.

houndawg wrote:Yep. USC, Florida, and their like should play in a separate conference of their own funded by the NFL. The NCAA doesn't serve any purpose beneficial to anybody but themselves and should be taxed as the for-profit operation they are.

Heck I'd go a step further than that and just dissolve it.

The true student athlete schools could simply form a governing rules committee and be done with it. Cap expenditures per each school across the board, set eligibility standards and then be done with it.

CID1990 wrote:We could put an across the board spending cap on football and basketball programs

Commie.

Chizzang wrote:I don't know... How about $25,000..?

Maybe. So schools now have to pony up over $1.5M a year for stipends for football. Yeah, that's gonna happen.

89Hen wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I don't know... How about $25,000..?

Maybe. So schools now have to pony up over $1.5M a year for stipends for football. Yeah, that's gonna happen.

Not schools... this isn't about "schools"
its about the NCAA
if this was about the schools paying the NCAA would be all for it
But it's about the NCAA paying

The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar organization that shows $625 million in assets
with a net surplus of never less than $50 million a year every year - year over year

And it's growing.

2014 revenue of $989 million. Surplus of $80.5 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... /70161386/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote:$1.5M a year for stipends for football.

a net surplus of never less than $50 million a year every year - year over year

I'm not a Mensa member, but by my math $50M divided by $1.5M is enough to pay 33 teams each year. Sounds like some teams/players are SOL.

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: As usual, Pwns hit the point, square. You think he missed because you don't agree.

No he missed the point entirely...
Nobody is debating how Student Athletes are forced into anything
The debate is about two things:

1)
The NCAA uses college basketball and football players likeness to profit on video games to the score of tens of millions of dollars - and has absolutely no profit sharing for the very focal point of the profit center - players could be payed AFTER they graduate (Right..?)

That's ^ slimy by anybody's standards...

2)
The NCAA has the kids sign an employee contract with 400 pages of conduct and stipulations associated with performance etc. etc. (clearly an employee contract) and refuses to admit that is what it is

Chizz, do you understand why it's problematic to let college athletes profit off of their likeness? If you do, you're going to have wealthy boosters paying star players $3000 for their abstract crayon art. Player autographs and jerseys and such are only valuable because that player is a player is on a college sports team, anyways.

It's the same reason you have restrictions on athletes holding jobs, because if there weren't you will have athletes working for $50 an hour as an elevator operator in a one-story building.

So my post holds. When you sign the letter of intent, you agree to the terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign them. If you don't like it that your school makes a lot of money and you don't get a cut of it, don't sign with a big-money athletic department. Simple.