• 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!

Elko DOES leave Notre Dame to take DC spot at A&M

dcon69 said:
The turn on this thread has made me question the value of a Wake Forest Education- right left or in the middle.
Click to expand...

Posters are demonstrating the ability to take a complex issue and boil down a solution, on one side or the other, to one or two declarative sentences. Wake grads have a distinct ability to avoid nuance.
 
I just don't think it's complex. The players provide the school with a service, playing football. In return, the school gives the players food, room, books, and free tuition, a platform to create a resume for the NFL, and 400-500 hundred extra dollars a month if they are willing to have a roommate off campus. And my comment earlier was lazy, and now deleted.

I agree that if we are to compensate them further, it becomes very complex. Are they employees? Do they now abide by the state's labor laws? taxes? Are they paid per hour? Per game? If by game, do they pay taxes in the state where the game was played (like the NFL)? Where does the money come from? NCAA, School, Boosters? how much? Flat pay for all student athletes (Cross country too), or just revenue generating sports? Do we pay them based on how many plays they play in the game? Do the better players get more?
 
Last edited:
Why can’t the players make their own money off of their own likeness?

Of course it’s a complicated issue which has a big sphere of influence over schools and programs that aren’t as flush with cash as aTm, but “why try?” has never seemed like a good strategy to me. College athletics ceased being an extracurricular activity long long ago.

I would be curious as to how many folks who are against compensating student athletes believe pro athletes are paid too much?
 
I think Pro athletes have negotiated for their salaries and working conditions under the CBA via the representation that they elect. Whatever they get paid is what they have agreed to and fought for. We've seen that they've had to Strike at times to get what they want. I have no issue with NBA salaries (really high) or NFL's non guaranteed salaries, because it's a mutual agreement.

NCAA football players can certainly strike if they believe they are being underpaid or not sign the scholarship which outlines their responsibilities to the school. The schools can then sign other players. I'm sure there are plenty of good players out there that are fine with "just" the free education. Especially in my mid-late 20s, I realized how lucky I was that I didn't have student loans and interest like many of my classmates.

I don't have a good answer for you on that one. I'm kind of for making a dollar if you can, as long as you are paying taxes on the income like everyone else. But I think corruption would certainly be more rampant than it already is if we made it "legal" for athletes to make money themselves off of their own likeness. I'm sure Bama, Clemson, Ohio State would certainly have boosters and fans paying more money to players for their jerseys or autograph as an incentive for playing for their school, rather than a fair market price for a signed jersey. Then it just becomes a bidding war for top recruits. Which I don't want to see in NCAA football.

Further, I believe the school is somewhat (mostly?) responsible for giving that athlete the platform to be able to eventually make money off his likeness, which many do after they are done playing.
 
Last edited:
SDeacz said:
I think Pro athletes have negotiated for their salaries and working conditions under the CBA via the representation that they elect. Whatever they get paid is what they have agreed to and fought for. We've seen that they've had to Strike at times to get what they want. I have no issue with NBA salaries (really high) or NFL's non guaranteed salaries, because it's a mutual agreement.

NCAA football players can certainly strike if they believe they are being underpaid or not sign the scholarship which outlines their responsibilities to the school. The schools can then sign other players. I'm sure there are plenty of good players out there that are fine with "just" the free education. Especially in my mid-late 20s, I realized how lucky I was that I didn't have student loans and interest like many of my classmates.

I don't have a good answer for you on that one. I'm kind of for making a dollar if you can, as long as you are paying taxes on the income like everyone else. But I think corruption would certainly be more rampant than it already is if we made it "legal" for athletes to make money themselves off of their own likeness. I'm sure Bama, Clemson, Ohio State would certainly have boosters and fans paying more money to players for their jerseys or autograph as an incentive for playing for their school, rather than a fair market price for a signed jersey. Then it just becomes a bidding war for top recruits. Which I don't want to see in NCAA football.

Further, I believe the school is somewhat (mostly?) responsible for giving that athlete the platform to be able to eventually make money off his likeness, which many do after they are done playing.
Click to expand...

We already have a bidding war for top recruits. Why do you think Clemson basically built a theme park for their football team?
 
DeaconSig said:
That maybe true. Given that SDeacz agreed with me and edited his post, the point still stands.

But feel free to be outraged.
Click to expand...

SDeacz may have backed down as a function of discretion being the better part of valor, but your reply was over the top. How do you get off questioning his morality for stating fact or opinion? And exactly what did/do you consider immoral in what he said. Not to your surprise, I surely didn't disagree with anything I saw quoted.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
We already have a bidding war for top recruits. Why do you think Clemson basically built a theme park for their football team?
Click to expand...

I agree there is an effective bidding war today - and that is with all the restrictions on what athletes can do and what schools and boosters can do for the athletes. If you take those restrictions away the bidding war increases tenfold, in my opinion. Some people seem to forget that the restrictions against athletes making money from their likeness and around having jobs are not there out of a desire to hold the athletes back - they are there to prevent the kinds of gaming of the system that the big programs would engage in given the opportunity.

How many Alabama boosters would line up to pay athletes big money for autographs, etc? How many Wake Forest boosters?
 
Lohengrin said:
SDeacz may have backed down as a function of discretion being the better part of valor, but your reply was over the top. How do you get off questioning his morality for stating fact or opinion? And exactly what did/do you consider immoral in what he said. Not to your surprise, I surely didn't disagree with anything I saw quoted.
Click to expand...

I questioned his post because I generally value his opinion, and his post seemed out of character. I would have not thought twice about the same post from you, because (1) I don't particularly value your opinion; and (2) that post would be in character for you.

Happy Friday!
 
Deacfreak07 said:
We already have a bidding war for top recruits. Why do you think Clemson basically built a theme park for their football team?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess. There's probably a difference, that I'm not smart enough to articulate effectively, between facility development vs cash in hand.
 
scooter84 said:
I agree there is an effective bidding war today - and that is with all the restrictions on what athletes can do and what schools and boosters can do for the athletes. If you take those restrictions away the bidding war increases tenfold, in my opinion. Some people seem to forget that the restrictions against athletes making money from their likeness and around having jobs are not there out of a desire to hold the athletes back - they are there to prevent the kinds of gaming of the system that the big programs would engage in given the opportunity.

How many Alabama boosters would line up to pay athletes big money for autographs, etc? How many Wake Forest boosters?
Click to expand...

Yeah imagine where Alabama/Clemson/etc would be in the recruiting rankings if that happened!
 
bmoneydeac said:
Yeah imagine where Alabama/Clemson/etc would be in the recruiting rankings if that happened!
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying, but, today at least some highly-regarded recruits escape to the lesser programs. If the big programs were allowed to arrange for their players to make significantly more cash while playing than they could at a smaller program, I think even those escapes would dry up.

I don't know, as unsavory as the whole recruiting game is today, it just seems like it would get worse with these types of arrangements allowed... Hey Clemson, Alabama has promised me $10k of autograph proceeds per year, how much can you promise?
 
If you start your consideration of fairness in college athletics somewhere other than the perspective of athletes, I think that’s a problem.

Student athletes at the more enfranchised programs already have a better experience than those elsewhere. I fail to see the difference.

Also, what’s wrong with a student making a decision about which school to attend from a business/financial standpoint?
 
I just find it odd that there seems to be a water’s edge to financial conservative principals when it comes to this issue. Generally speaking, there also seems to be a curious issue with professional athlete compensation. I just find it curious because sports is perhaps the only true meritocracy in America today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top