• 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!

CA about to blow up NCAA?

Rafi’s out here talking about how nice the plantation is.

It is the only system there is. That doesn’t make it the right one.

Again, using this kind of language shows you’re not interested in a real discussion.

If college is a plantation, who are the non-student athletes that pay to attend? Don’t you work on the plantation (at a college)? What is the role of the professor?
 
The way you’re twisting the analogy shows you’re not interested in a real conversation. You were talking about athletic facilities. So was I.

If the system works, just pay the athletes in money like everyone else associated with athletics.
 
It is the only system there is. That doesn’t make it the right one.

It’s not the only system. It’s not even one system. The rules are quite different in football, basketball, baseball, tennis, etc. There are also different systems in other parts of the world, but many come here for college and many countries are considering a change to the US college system.
 
The way you’re twisting the analogy shows you’re not interested in a real conversation. You were talking about athletic facilities. So was I.

If the system works, just pay the athletes in money like everyone else associated with athletics.

I was addressing the exaggerated language (exploited indentured servant), and you brought in the terrible plantation analogy.

Your second paragraph is my point. The system works, so there is no reason to completely change it. Altering the amateur model will have many negative consequences and result in the system breaking down, in my opinion. I think it would probably be replaced by the academy model: put talented athletes in academies at a young age, focus entirely on one sport (with no focus on academics), and hope some of the kids become pros. Those that don’t make it? Too bad.
 
How would the system be worse if student-athletes were paid?
 
How would the system be worse if student-athletes were paid?

There would be a very small number of schools in a pay-for-play system. The majority of schools would opt out and play in a completely separate division.

You would have maybe 12-16 schools like Alabama, Louisville, and the like.

Maybe that would be for the best. Just let those sham schools play against each other while the rest keep the academic model.

Would certainly help Wake Forest once they get rid of Manning.
 
The system doesn't work for the athletes in revenue sports. They create tens of millions of dollars for the universities, billions for the networks and hundreds of millions for the sneaker companies. The scholarship doesn't cover the revenues they create.

If you assume between practice, lifting and class, these athletes easily put in 50-60 hours per week. Even at Wake, you are only talking about the scholarship paying them $30 or so /hour. When you get to state schools, it's barely minimum wage.

They are woefully under-compensated.
 
How would the system be worse if student-athletes were paid?

Really? I can think of many ways the whole thing falls apart. But the most direct, and probably the most plausible, is that 90% of the schools involved decide that paying professional athletes is not in the mission of their university, so they drop the sports. Then the lack of interest in the few teams left results in the whole system dissolving.
 
The system doesn't work for the athletes in revenue sports. They create tens of millions of dollars for the universities, billions for the networks and hundreds of millions for the sneaker companies. The scholarship doesn't cover the revenues they create.

If you assume between practice, lifting and class, these athletes easily put in 50-60 hours per week. Even at Wake, you are only talking about the scholarship paying them $30 or so /hour. When you get to state schools, it's barely minimum wage.

They are woefully under-compensated.

If it is so awful why does everyone work so hard to get those scholarships?

The majority of those playing in revenue sports will never play professionally and yet they work extremely hard to get those scholarships.

I think it works fine except for the best of the best. I don't see why you would want to destroy a system that works very well for 95+ % of those involved.

That 5% are going to do really well regardless.
 
Last edited:
Really? I can think of many ways the whole thing falls apart. But the most direct, and probably the most plausible, is that 90% of the schools involved decide that paying professional athletes is not in the mission of their university, so they drop the sports. Then the lack of interest in the few teams left results in the whole system dissolving.

Agree. Killing the golden goose to help those already on the road to riches get a head start makes no sense.
 
There would be a very small number of schools in a pay-for-play system. The majority of schools would opt out and play in a completely separate division.

You would have maybe 12-16 schools like Alabama, Louisville, and the like.

Maybe that would be for the best. Just let those sham schools play against each other while the rest keep the academic model.

Would certainly help Wake Forest once they get rid of Manning.

That’s ridiculous. It would take under $1.5M a year to pay every scholarship athlete in a revenue sport the equivalent of a grad student stipend. That revenue can easily come from TV contracts, shoe deals, and trimming coaches salaries. The money is there.
 
How would the system be worse if student-athletes were paid?

I think this kind of question is at the heart of what happened in the Ed O’Bannon case. The simplistic thought was, “we should pay athletes for being in this game, what could go wrong?” And what happened is that EA sports completely dropped the game.

What has to be understood in regards to college athletics is that it is not the individual athletes that drive the interest. Not at all. It is the schools and the rivalries. Quick - Wake will play UNC in a month in a sold-out and contentious football game; can you name 5 of the 80+ players on the UNC team? Can you name 2 players?

Once one realizes it’s not about the individual players (except in rare circumstances - Zion, Johnny Manziel), then the argument that they are key for generating the revenue breaks down. RJ‘s hourly compensation argument (already factually flawed), becomes even more irrelevant.
 
I can’t name most people who work at any business I frequent. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid.

Either way, it derails your point about the O’Bannon case because it was important to EA and consumers to make sure the players were accurately represented.

And EA Sports was willing to pay players. The NCAA wasn’t willing to let them.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...a-football-video-game-canceled-why-it-stopped

After the O’Bannon case (and even before it went to trial), everyone was cool with the game continuing — except the NCAA.

EA said in a court filing it was fine paying players for their inclusion. The company is known for paying out the ears to license the most realistic components of its sports games.
...


O’Bannon made the NCAA worry that if it sanctioned video games and let players get paid for being in them, it would open the door to athletes getting paid for other stuff.

If the NCAA would let players and EA negotiate over licensing, they would. Then the schools could make their own deals as usual, and the game could return. We’d all have more fun, and everyone involved would make money.
 
Last edited:
What are the tax implications for "pay"? Will Clemson have to give up the slide they installed?
 
That’s ridiculous. It would take under $1.5M a year to pay every scholarship athlete in a revenue sport the equivalent of a grad student stipend. That revenue can easily come from TV contracts, shoe deals, and trimming coaches salaries. The money is there.

You could pay them the equivalent of a grad student stipend. That would likely be feasible and many schools would do that.

Is that what we are really talking about? I assumed we would allow schools to bid for players and pay them whatever the players could get.

Would we not be having the exact same discussion if we were paying the equivalent of a grad student stipend?
 
That’s ridiculous. It would take under $1.5M a year to pay every scholarship athlete in a revenue sport the equivalent of a grad student stipend. That revenue can easily come from TV contracts, shoe deals, and trimming coaches salaries. The money is there.

They already get more than this. Where have you been? They get room, board, books for both semesters and two summer school sessions. They also get clothes and a $3000 stipend. This adds up to more than $25,000 per year. The best grad school stipends at Wake are about $24,000.
 
That adds up to $3,000 a year.
 
I can’t name most people who work at any business I frequent. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid.

Exactly. Even though McDonalds is a $100 billion company, they compensate those making the burgers way less than college athletes.

Wake could pay a student athlete $100,000 per year, and then have the student pay tuition, room, board, etc if that would make you feel better, but it seems an unnecessary step to achieve the same current situation.
 
That adds up to $3,000 a year.

Again, Wake could pay the student-athlete $25,000 per year and then not cover room, board, etc (just like grad students) if that would make you happy, but the end result is the same as the current situation.
 
Back
Top