• 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!

CF Players start unionizing

Compensation should be based on revenue, at its best, let the market set the rate. Paying market prices, not many will go bankrupt. Trying to apply a one salary fits all will either break the little schools, or send the balance due the 5* athletes under the table. An Alabama player is generally worth more than a Wake player who is worth more than a WSSU player. At least a union can help negotiate a flexible rate. Without it, the players are divided while schools are united, and the players begging for scraps.

Also keep in mind that new revenue streams are opened up once players receive payment. EA Sports has the union to pay to use the player's name, number, and likeness. Same for jersey sales. All those boosters that want to pay players now have a legitimate way to funnel that money to them. Let athletes make commercials, have sponsorships. The ultimate end game (far in the future when a warchest is built up) is for the NCAA and the union to force the NFL and NBA to pay them to be their minor leagues. The NBA D-league is a joke. The NFL couldn't create a farm system to compete with college football either. There would probably be a strike to get this, but the first step to ever trying or succeeding is forming a union.
 
DeaconSig said:
yeah, whodat wins the award for "dumbest post on the thread" and we still have at least 4 or 5 pages to go.

D4L hit it on the head- college football (and probably "big time" college sports) is coming to an end. Colleges (outside of maybe 40-50), can't pay players. Do you really think WSSU can afford to pay a salary to a football player when they play in front of 12,000 at B-G and pay their head football coach about $200,000 a year? How about Davidson? Let's look at D-1. What chance does North Texas, Troy, or any of the Sunbelt teams have to be able to afford to pay players? Athletic departments, with the exception of those which have their own endowments, are generally self-funded operations that are expected to meet a budget every year. And those schools work hard to break even when using football and baskteball $$ to fund their entire department.

Is it possible for schools to come up with ~$500,000.00 to $1,000,000 a year to pay some sort of cheap stipend to football players? For those in the BCS conferences, possibly. But is paying ~5,000 to $10,000 a year fair compensation to college football players? Not really.

We have all grown up (and in some cases, got very old) watching a system based on a fantasy. I can live with that, and don't have a huge problem with the system as is. It probably helps more folks than it hurts. But if folks want to bring the real-world into the fantasy, that is probably fine as well. Its not like what we watch is legal based on any fair interpretation of the law. But don't be shocked when bringing the real-world into the fantasy finally divorces college sports from college.
Click to expand...

Bingo
 
What's the cost of the education they're already receiving? The cost of tutors? The cost of the health care being provided? The cost of housing allowances? The cost of the training and coaching they receive (yes, there's a cost to that as well)?

Or how about the intangibles like pussy or being able to showcase your talents for a BCS school so that you're noticed by NFL scouts?

Whoever said that only a few athletic departments are making money nailed it. There are only a few, and they are the top dogs. In no way, shape, or form should they be forced to profit share, and there is no way in hell they'd agree to do it. This is bad, bad, bad all the way around. You wanna get paid hard cash? Go play in Canada or on some shitty semi-pro league for a couple years.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
So what is fair? Remember that every athlete is already getting room, board, tutoring, and some clothing free. And the large majority of them cost their university money.
Click to expand...

Why do the pro-pay proponents just brush this away like it's meaningless, like it's not really money? Let's see, out of state student at Michigan, tuition is $40000, standard room and board is $10000, books is $1000 (which is conservative), miscellaneous is $2000. Up to $53 just with that. Not to mention special treatment for four years, including better food than other students eat, whenever they want it, and guaranteed job connections upon graduation that other students just don't have. Look, I get the NCAA is making money off the backs of these guys, but don't act like what they are getting in return does not translate to MONEY.
 
Last edited:
Skydog Deac said:
Why do the pro-pay proponents just brush this away like it's meaningless, like it's not really money? Let's see, out of state student at Michigan, tuition is $40, standard room and board is $10, books is $1000 (which is conservative), miscellaneous is $2000. Up to $53 just with that. Not to mention special treatment for four years, including better food than other students eat, whenever they want it, and guaranteed job connections upon graduation that other students just don't have. Look, I get the NCAA is making money off the backs of these guys, but don't act like what they are getting in return does not translate to MONEY.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ph's solution for just this reason. Graduate school-esque stipends really are the answer in this case in part because these athletes are elite in their field and contribute a lot to the value of the school through their performance at and affiliation with their school. For these reasons, they're also not "regular students" (and it's stupid that anti-pay advocates can't understand this).

To build on the graduate school example, take me: I get paid a small amount in stipend (<20k when I'm not teaching), but if you factor in the university paying my out of state tuition (50k) and insurance (12k), then I'm making a decent living, repping and contributing to the value of my university, and getting paid pretty fairly relative to what the UC system and my public university can actually pay. Considering what I stand to get out of being in this institution, that's a good deal.

What makes student athletes' situations different?
 
Skydog Deac said:
Why do the pro-pay proponents just brush this away like it's meaningless, like it's not really money? Let's see, out of state student at Michigan, tuition is $40000, standard room and board is $10000, books is $1000 (which is conservative), miscellaneous is $2000. Up to $53 just with that. Not to mention special treatment for four years, including better food than other students eat, whenever they want it, and guaranteed job connections upon graduation that other students just don't have. Look, I get the NCAA is making money off the backs of these guys, but don't act like what they are getting in return does not translate to MONEY.
Click to expand...

Translate to money isn't the same as money. You don't work for coupons. You work for cash. ESPN isn't paying the ACC in workshops and credentials. They're paying cash.
 
DeaconSig said:
yeah, whodat wins the award for "dumbest post on the thread" and we still have at least 4 or 5 pages to go.

D4L hit it on the head- college football (and probably "big time" college sports) is coming to an end. Colleges (outside of maybe 40-50), can't pay players. Do you really think WSSU can afford to pay a salary to a football player when they play in front of 12,000 at B-G and pay their head football coach about $200,000 a year? How about Davidson? Let's look at D-1. What chance does North Texas, Troy, or any of the Sunbelt teams have to be able to afford to pay players? Athletic departments, with the exception of those which have their own endowments, are generally self-funded operations that are expected to meet a budget every year. And those schools work hard to break even when using football and baskteball $$ to fund their entire department.

Is it possible for schools to come up with ~$500,000.00 to $1,000,000 a year to pay some sort of cheap stipend to football players? For those in the BCS conferences, possibly. But is paying ~5,000 to $10,000 a year fair compensation to college football players? Not really.

We have all grown up (and in some cases, got very old) watching a system based on a fantasy. I can live with that, and don't have a huge problem with the system as is. It probably helps more folks than it hurts. But if folks want to bring the real-world into the fantasy, that is probably fine as well. Its not like what we watch is legal based on any fair interpretation of the law. But don't be shocked when bringing the real-world into the fantasy finally divorces college sports from college.
Click to expand...

I would argue that college sports has been shell of a marriage for quite a while. A divorce would be more honest. Think of how patently dishonest the current system is from beginning to end.

1. Schools make special exceptions to admit student athletes who cannot be admitted on their own academic work.
2. Schools put them in jock classes and easy majors with little marketability in the outside world - or in UNC case, sham classes. They have counselors to direct the student's "choice" else they get the Robert Smith treatment. And it's not just tOSU, but the other OSU, too. A well-intentioned school will try to tutor them through, often blurring the lines of their work and the tutor's.
3. This sham education is compensation for the millions of revenue they generate. So it really doesn't matter the cost of the education (and I'll skip the current education bubble inflating cost several times more than healthcare in the last 40 years), if the education is worthless.

But sure, I don't think anyone is saying the athletes are getting nothing - they're just not getting anything close to market value. Let the market set their price. Some athletes don't deserve a full scholarship - maybe a partial scholarship.
 
Strickland33 said:
I agree with Ph's solution for just this reason. Graduate school-esque stipends really are the answer in this case in part because these athletes are elite in their field and contribute a lot to the value of the school through their performance at and affiliation with their school. For these reasons, they're also not "regular students" (and it's stupid that anti-pay advocates can't understand this).

To build on the graduate school example, take me: I get paid a small amount in stipend (<20k when I'm not teaching), but if you factor in the university paying my out of state tuition (50k) and insurance (12k), then I'm making a decent living, repping and contributing to the value of my university, and getting paid pretty fairly relative to what the UC system and my public university can actually pay. Considering what I stand to get out of being in this institution, that's a good deal.

What makes student athletes' situations different?
Click to expand...

In the extreme examples (ie Johnny Football), they make more money for the school than just about any professor.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
In the extreme examples (ie Johnny Football), they make more money for the school than just about any professor.
Click to expand...

That's fine. But most college athletes do not and like others have said, there are better paying markets to which elite players can take their talents if they want to be paid more ( the NFL and NBA aren't options like the MLB is for college aged athletes, but overseas and semiprofessional leagues are). If you're looking for a system-wide reform that will preserve the current state of collegiate athletics, then a model built in a similar foundation to that of graduate student funding may be the only way out for the NCAA.
 
Last edited:
The majority of college athletes get well above market value for their talents (think about this..the minimum salary for a single A baseball play is $1,050 / month). Truth is the vast majority of college athletes, and this includes major conference college football and basketball players, would not draw anywhere close to the value of an athletics scholarship without the collegiate athletics system. Yes, there are many players that get jobbed, but there are more that are given an opportunity they wouldn't get otherwise, all in return for playing a game that they enjoy. That doesn't make the system right or fair, but it's all enabled by the college-pride / athletics connection so if, I were a college athlete, I'd be pretty worried about rocking the boat and breaking that symbiotic connection.
 
PhDeac said:
Translate to money isn't the same as money. You don't work for coupons. You work for cash. ESPN isn't paying the ACC in workshops and credentials. They're paying cash.
Click to expand...

Sorry my friend, that is an extremely weak rationalization.
 
Strickland33 said:
That's fine. But most college athletes do not and like others have said, there are better paying markets to which elite players can take their talents if they want to be paid more ( the NFL and NBA aren't options like the MLB is for college aged athletes, but overseas and semiprofessional leagues are). If you're looking for a system-wide reform that will preserve the current state of collegiate athletics, then a model built in a similar foundation to that of graduate student funding may be the only way out for the NCAA.
Click to expand...

What are the minor league options for CFB players?

Why would a union settle for anything less than top dollar for top players?
 
Strickland33 said:
I agree with Ph's solution for just this reason. Graduate school-esque stipends really are the answer in this case in part because these athletes are elite in their field and contribute a lot to the value of the school through their performance at and affiliation with their school. For these reasons, they're also not "regular students" (and it's stupid that anti-pay advocates can't understand this).

To build on the graduate school example, take me: I get paid a small amount in stipend (<20k when I'm not teaching), but if you factor in the university paying my out of state tuition (50k) and insurance (12k), then I'm making a decent living, repping and contributing to the value of my university, and getting paid pretty fairly relative to what the UC system and my public university can actually pay. Considering what I stand to get out of being in this institution, that's a good deal.

What makes student athletes' situations different?
Click to expand...

Grad students are cheap hourly labor, and the advisers absolutely abuse them sometimes.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What are the minor league options for CFB players?

Why would a union settle for anything less than top dollar for top players?
Click to expand...

Are there not paying football leagues outside of the CFL and NFL? If not, then players who want to showcase their talents in games to NFL scouts will have the choice of going to college or training independently. Something tells me that you'll see a lot of the former. At least they'll be getting paid and will have the opportunity to improve their human and social capital both on and off of the field.

Regarding the latter- I'm a pretty die hard union guy, but you don't understand how unions work if you think that the issue here is whether they'll settle. First, there has to be a union. That takes work, and it'll also take getting enough schools unionized to get universities to the bargaining table. The NYU decision in the NLRB has made this a possibility, methinks, but it's going to be awhile before this takes off in a system-wide level. Should the union model work for organized student athletes, then the question is one of leverage and bargaining power. Given that the union is going to be advocating on behalf of all student athletes, then if would imagine that it'll be in the business of trying to get a lot done for its less well off members, which might include better health care and access to workers compensation and general stipends. Your football example is also relevant here, too. If there's no market, then where would the union's bargaining power be?
 
Liquid Karma said:
Grad students are cheap hourly labor, and the advisers absolutely abuse them sometimes.
Click to expand...

Believe me: I know that all too well. Unlike, say, Bob Knight's legion of unpaid hourly labor, however and for instance, at least I get paid (with tuition and benefits thrown in for good measure) for the pleasure.
 
Skydog Deac said:
Sorry my friend, that is an extremely weak rationalization.
Click to expand...

That people get paid money to do a job. That's not "rationalization." That's the way the world works for 99.9999999999999% of jobs.
 
PhDeac said:
That people get paid money to do a job. That's not "rationalization." That's the way the world works for 99.9999999999999% of jobs.
Click to expand...

Except when a majority of the workers come from working class families and/or are African-American. Then, it becomes irrational to seek compensation for work. It's a tired script.
 
Ok fine in the PH model pay the students and remove tuition, housing, food, etc... that they get. Pay each student market rate for their worth to the school. Lets see pretty much every athlete at Wake is going to owe Wake a substantial amount of money, maybe some basketball stars end up in the black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top