• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Alabama and Clemson players should boycott Monday's game

When we say "pay college athletes" we really mean pay men's football and basketball players. No one thinks that any athlete from any other sports is really being exploited.
 
wakephan09 said:
When we say "pay college athletes" we really mean pay men's football and basketball players. No one thinks that any athlete from any other sports is really being exploited.
Click to expand...
I think this and title IX are where the pay for play arguments run into trouble. What to do with all the sports that lose money? Do you cut men's golf/soccer to afford to pay football players and women's volleyball players?
I am not saying players should not be paid, but how do you work it out? Especially since football and basketball pay for all of the other sports at most schools.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was a pretty poor article for the following reasons:

1. The article starts by stating that student athletes are "working for free" and "unpaid labor." Much later on the author admits that students get scholarships. By initially stating that the students "work for free" it is clear that he is not interested in an intellectually honest presentation of the issues.
2. I think the racial angle completely worked against his argument. Rather than demonstrate a system set up to exploit minority athletes (which I believe was his point of view), it highlighted the fact that the system was created when all the athletes were white and there were no minority student athletes. Minority students struggled, rightfully so, to join the college athletics system. Additionally, the stats he provided argue that without college athletics, many minority student athletes would not be able to gain admission to the schools they currently attend. This highlights the great opportunity that college athletics provides to many student athletes.
3. The argument that it's a problem that schools spend millions on training facilities (like Clemson and Oregon) doesn't make any sense. Who does he think those facilities benefit? They are created to provide top notch training, nutrition, and sports medicine to the student athletes.
4. Finally, the new angle that this article brings is that it is written by a sports agent. Of course he wants there to be more football players earning salaries - it means more clients for him to sign and more money for him. If you want to see true exploitation and shady dealings, create a system in which agents are trying to sign 14 year old kids.
 
The fallacy in the argument is that there is only one Alabama and only a few at Clemson's level of money generation. Yes, those programs rake in a ton of cash and the coaches/athletic departments make a boatload of money. That is the exception rather than the rule among the 130 programs that make up FBS level football. Northwestern, Vandy, Indiana, even TCU not to mention the Temples and Memphis's of college football break even or lose money on football most years. Those schools draw a fraction of the fans as the Michigans and Ohio States of the world and have much smaller revenue streams.

I guess you could create a super-conference of the top 20 revenue generating programs, and just have those mega money schools pay big stipends to the players in those programs, but not sure if that would be better for the 100+ current FBS programs that couldn't pay big bucks on the Bama and Clemson level and would have to drop into a lower level. The super conference would then become an NFL lite, which I am not sure would end up being very compelling, and might lead to fewer scholarship programs and fewer opportunities for HS kids to get free college via football.

Bama and Clemson need schools to play them, and if players get paid the programs playing the highest level of college football will massively shrink. Trying to understand how that helps the mass majority of kids playing college football.
 
BillBrasky said:
It's the elephant in the room that nobody on the PAY THE PLAYERS THEIR VALUE side ever really acknowledges.

If their ideal world occurs maybe 30-40 colleges can still afford to play football and pretty much all big time college AD's die.

Also I must miss all the outrage directed at the college athletes that are given much more than they contribute. Outside of about 5 women basketball programs, no female athlete should receive a scholarship in a fair pay model.
Click to expand...

It's curious that none of these articles that rail against injustice mention that getting rid of Title IX would be the easiest and fairest way to accomplish paying football and basketball players.
 
The article wasn't particularly well-written. As you would expect, a sports agent focuses primarily on money and expect the numbers to make his argument for him. However, he is correct. A few counterpoints to some of the arguments made here.

1. Athletic scholarship at NCAA institutions disproportionately go to white student-athletes. It's not even really close. The system as it is constructed disproportionately benefit white students who are primarily middle-to-upper middle class, not poor minorities. Beyond that, an upper-class white female tennis player gets "paid" the same scholarship as a poor black male football player who helps generate millions for the university.

2. Athletic programs "break even" after taking into account all the spending on coaches' salaries and facilities. Redirect spending from those areas toward football player stipends and the balance wouldn't really change. I can't really sympathize for people building a business model based on not paying workers. Get out of the business if you can't pay your workers.

3. The value of an athletic scholarship is not consistent from person to person and certainly not over time. Athletic departments hold a great deal of control over their student-athletes majors. The top priority is not the students' needs, interests, and future prospects. The priority is time and eligibility. GTFO if you think a football coach is going to schedule practice around the Civil Engineering department course schedule. Football and basketball players are primarily steered toward majors that have lower returns on investment, specially for students with a lower GPA and little engagement outside the classroom.

4. The most important point with respect to the value of a scholarship is that the value of bachelor's degree continues to decline. A BA is an random major just doesn't get you as far as it used to. Athletes are getting "paid" less despite bringing in more and more money to the university.
 
PhDeac said:
The article wasn't particularly well-written. As you would expect, a sports agent focuses primarily on money and expect the numbers to make his argument for him. However, he is correct. A few counterpoints to some of the arguments made here.

1. Athletic scholarship at NCAA institutions disproportionately go to white student-athletes. It's not even really close. The system as it is constructed disproportionately benefit white students who are primarily middle-to-upper middle class, not poor minorities. Beyond that, an upper-class white female tennis player gets "paid" the same scholarship as a poor black male football player who helps generate millions for the university.

2. Athletic programs "break even" after taking into account all the spending on coaches' salaries and facilities. Redirect spending from those areas toward football player stipends and the balance wouldn't really change. I can't really sympathize for people building a business model based on not paying workers. Get out of the business if you can't pay your workers.

3. The value of an athletic scholarship is not consistent from person to person and certainly not over time. Athletic departments hold a great deal of control over their student-athletes majors. The top priority is not the students' needs, interests, and future prospects. The priority is time and eligibility. GTFO if you think a football coach is going to schedule practice around the Civil Engineering department course schedule. Football and basketball players are primarily steered toward majors that have lower returns on investment, specially for students with a lower GPA and little engagement outside the classroom.

4. The most important point with respect to the value of a scholarship is that the value of bachelor's degree continues to decline. A BA is an random major just doesn't get you as far as it used to. Athletes are getting "paid" less despite bringing in more and more money to the university.
Click to expand...

A couple weeks ago, someone asked Deion Sanders on the NFL Network what he majored in at FSU: "Eligibility," he said.
 
The logistics of salaries for football players, and college athletes in general, are so murky that actually pulling this kind of thing off is probably impossible.

BUT...

Colleges and other entities should not be allowed to make money off the names, likenesses, jersey numbers, or other relevant aspects of athletes WITHOUT compensating them.

Put someone in a video game, even if you don't name him? Pay them.
Put someone's image on a ticket, calendar, or poster? Pay them.
Sell an active player's jersey in the apparel shop, even without a name? Pay them.
Set up players to sign autographs (that people are going to sell on the secondary market)? Pay them for their time.

I don't necessarily think college athletes should be able to actively promote themselves for compensation (i.e. setting up their own autograph sessions or signing exclusive contracts for trading cards, etc), but the above seems like a no-brainer to me.
 
BillBrasky said:
I should acknowledge that I agree with them getting a greater stipend (PH's presented grad student research model is cool) and I think that is where we are headed. But sitting out the NC in order to bite the hand that feeds you is just dumb. Few athletes are more replaceable than college football players. It really is about the front of the jersey, not the back.
Click to expand...

lol no

when the ncaa comes crashing down i'm sure 100k people will watch alabama play glorified walkons every week.
 
knowell said:
Ridiculous article. The solution would kill the golden goose. Nobody is being taken advantage of. Everybody is making choices of their own free will and it is beneficial to all involved. Top D1 athletes have a hell of a good deal. Worst part of the article is making this racial to boot.

The guy is wanting to add a huge number of potential clients.
Click to expand...

i didnt know college football players could eschew college to go straight to the nfl. is this a new rule?
 
If players start getting paid, how long until the best players get paid more?

The fact is that Derek Henry, Deshaun Watson and Christian MacCaffrey generated a lot of money for their schools, but the back-up left guard that is happy with his scholly; does the bare minimum to keep from getting kicked off the team, but makes no tangible contribution to the program is getting more from his ship than he is providing the school by acting as a practice tackling dummy for 4 years. Why should Derek Henry and this back backup OG get paid the same amount? That's not fair.

Also, the Bama men's hoop program is major money loser for Bama. Should a Bama basketball player get paid the same as Bama football player? Not fair. Ask the reverse question for Kentucky or Kansas. Why should a Kansas football player get paid the same as a Kansas basketball player? If the inherent inequity is revenue generation, we can't pay the athletes the same amount as some generate a ton of money for their school and some generate nothing.
 
PhDeac said:
The article wasn't particularly well-written. As you would expect, a sports agent focuses primarily on money and expect the numbers to make his argument for him. However, he is correct. A few counterpoints to some of the arguments made here.

1. Athletic scholarship at NCAA institutions disproportionately go to white student-athletes. It's not even really close. The system as it is constructed disproportionately benefit white students who are primarily middle-to-upper middle class, not poor minorities. Beyond that, an upper-class white female tennis player gets "paid" the same scholarship as a poor black male football player who helps generate millions for the university.

2. Athletic programs "break even" after taking into account all the spending on coaches' salaries and facilities. Redirect spending from those areas toward football player stipends and the balance wouldn't really change. I can't really sympathize for people building a business model based on not paying workers. Get out of the business if you can't pay your workers.

3. The value of an athletic scholarship is not consistent from person to person and certainly not over time. Athletic departments hold a great deal of control over their student-athletes majors. The top priority is not the students' needs, interests, and future prospects. The priority is time and eligibility. GTFO if you think a football coach is going to schedule practice around the Civil Engineering department course schedule. Football and basketball players are primarily steered toward majors that have lower returns on investment, specially for students with a lower GPA and little engagement outside the classroom.

4. The most important point with respect to the value of a scholarship is that the value of bachelor's degree continues to decline. A BA is an random major just doesn't get you as far as it used to. Athletes are getting "paid" less despite bringing in more and more money to the university.
Click to expand...

Athletic programs at all these schools are paying for a lot more than just the schollies. They are also responsible for how high the professor's pay is generally because of how many people want to attend said university. The football programs at all but about 15 schools actually lose overall money, but everything else that goes into it is what makes for the overall benefits to the school and its student-athletes. And besides, they are getting a great education if they so choose to take advantage of it.
 
deacphan said:
lol no

when the ncaa comes crashing down i'm sure 100k people will watch alabama play glorified walkons every week.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're wrong. The difference between this 5-star recruit and that 5-star recruit is very small. It's why I don't really bother to follow college football recruiting anymore, especially for the bigger programs. There our thousands of kids with similar skill sets that could be plugged into the right system with the right coach and make similar impacts.

It's not like college basketball where one or two athletes make the difference. Yes Derrick Henry is awesome, but what's the knock on him? That he's just like every other Bama power back. Without Henry Bama is still probably a 10+ win team.

So if the top 100 athletes bypassed college and went straight to the pros each year, I doubt most of us would notice very much. Sure the size and speed of the game would drop slightly, but that would lead to very little in fan interest dropping. Fans are connected to the university, not the players.

Of course there is nowhere for these 18-19 year old kids to go because virtually zero of them are physically ready for the NFL. So they go to college where the get an education on top of the best strength/conditioning and job/skill training available, all for free.

Also take a team like Wake. When you factor in how much money the sport makes for the school, how many kids on the team are truly worth their $50-60K/year scholarship? It can't be that many. Hell at least 15-20 of them are nothing more than glorified tacking dummies each season.

And that doesn't even touch non-revenue sports. Don't you think the universities would of separated athletics from academics a long time ago if they could have? I mean what university wants to have to spend hundreds of millions on floating sports that bring in virtually zero revenue. But they can't, because of Title IX.

Unless of course by separating athletics and academics, you meant ending collegiate sports. That would work, I just wish you would be more forthright about your intentions.
 
BillBrasky said:
Yeah you're wrong. The difference between this 5-star recruit and that 5-star recruit is very small. It's why I don't really bother to follow college football recruiting anymore, especially for the bigger programs. There our thousands of kids with similar skill sets that could be plugged into the right system with the right coach and make similar impacts.
Click to expand...

Just patently false. Thousands? Thousands?!?!
 
TownieDeac said:
Just patently false. Thousands? Thousands?!?!
Click to expand...

You're right, I should of left it at hundreds. Not sure why I changed it.

However your third place finisher in the Heisman this season, Baker Mayfield, was a walk on Texas Tech before transferring to Oklahoma.

That was my point. A large large of these kids are quite interchangeable. Johnny Casual Fan doesn't usually even know their name until they've already been on campus for 2-3 years.
 
I don't think asking players to boycott the championship game is reasonable. (And it's also part of the reason that the side of administration / ownership will always have more power in sports, the athletes have a limited number of chances / years to give.) But the optics of so much money going to not-the-players is awful.

Salaries for some NCAA conference commissioners are skyrocketing. Here's why.​

8RZMfzQ.jpg


To critics of amateurism in college sports, such as economist Andy Schwarz, soaring commissioner pay isn’t surprising. In the era of DVR and Netflix, when television networks pay more than ever to broadcast live sporting events, these conferences are seeing the same income growth as professional sports leagues without one major expense: player salaries.
Click to expand...

In 2004, the Pac-10 was headquarterered 25 miles away, in a nondescript office building near a mall in suburban Walnut Creek. Today, the Pac-12 is headquartered in SoMa, a resurgent San Francisco neighborhood with trendy night spots, art galleries and 600-square-foot loft apartments with rents that start at $3,000 per month.
Click to expand...

When the Pac-12 hired Scott away from the Women’s Tennis Association in 2009, the conference gave him an interest-free, $1.86 million loan he used to buy his $1.85 million home in nearby Danville. The four-bedroom, four-bathroom, 4,600-square-foot hillside home features hardwood floors, a gourmet kitchen and wine bar, and “amazing” views of nearby Mt. Diablo, according to online listings.

Scott has yet to repay a dollar of the loan, tax documents show, but in an October interview, he said he plans to pay it off by 2019.
Click to expand...
 
PH, If African-Americans are 13% of the population, but make up a greater percentage (>13%) of the scholarship recipients, then it is out of alignment, but in the other direction. Look at it individually, because using stats will take you down the rabbit hole. BillBraskey is right that it's up to the individual how far he will take himself. Will he spend more time in the weight room, will he read comic books or the playbook. Character is under-emphasized with teenagers. Some of our best players were 2* with great character. Curry,Whitlock and Chubb come to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top