• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Blood doping, the NCAA and the Tour de France...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Tone and adjectives aside, Mili is absolutely correct here. You cannot allow boosters to provide anything to kids, any kind at all. The instant that becomes permissible you're essentially paying these players. Those gloves the teams toss into the crowd after a game become a hot property, and if boosters can provide benefits then the player is selling them rather than giving them to a kid. Which school is that player going to, a small school where he can get $100 for those gloves, or a school with boosters with deeper pockets where he can get $1,000 for them?

This is simple economics. Not sure where the debate comes from.
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;1996174; said:
Which school is that player going to, a small school where he can get $100 for those gloves, or a school with boosters with deeper pockets where he can get $1,000 for them?
Click to expand...
He'll go to the same school he goes to now - the big school with deep-pocketed boosters. You know, the one that pays its head coach $5 mil rather than the one that pays its head coach $180,000.

knapplc;1996174; said:
This is simple economics. Not sure where the debate comes from.
Click to expand...
The debate comes in when people suggest that the landscape will change if players are allowed to profit from their college celebrity. Jay Bilas and I agree - it really won't. The big difference will be that the student-athletes will have the chance to benefit directly from their stardom rather than having all the goodies go to coaches, administrators and the NCAA.

If you're going to be all high-minded about the economics of Big College Football, how do you excuse the exorbitant salaries paid to coaches?
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1996211; said:
He'll go to the same school he goes to now - the big school with deep-pocketed boosters. You know, the one that pays its head coach $5 mil rather than the one that pays its head coach $180,000.

The debate comes in when people suggest that the landscape will change if players are allowed to profit from their college celebrity. Jay Bilas and I agree - it really won't. The big difference will be that the student-athletes will have the chance to benefit directly from their stardom rather than having all the goodies go to coaches, administrators and the NCAA.

If you're going to be all high-minded about the economics of Big College Football, how do you excuse the exorbitant salaries paid to coaches?
Click to expand...

It's kindof a moot point isn't it? The NCAA will never allow this to happen. If they don't let a SA gain employment, why would they allow them to recieve a premium for their celebrity status?

The issue I see is not coming from the student athletes, it is the NCAA coming in and exposing all of the silly stuff and providing gossip editorial for ESPN. It is going to kill CFB.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1996211; said:
He'll go to the same school he goes to now - the big school with deep-pocketed boosters. You know, the one that pays its head coach $5 mil rather than the one that pays its head coach $180,000.

The debate comes in when people suggest that the landscape will change if players are allowed to profit from their college celebrity. Jay Bilas and I agree - it really won't. The big difference will be that the student-athletes will have the chance to benefit directly from their stardom rather than having all the goodies go to coaches, administrators and the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Maybe you and Jay Bilas (whoever that is) would go to the same school, but I think that kids who choose schools based on the color of their jerseys are a little more easily influenced than you.

If you're going to be all high-minded about the economics of Big College Football, how do you excuse the exorbitant salaries paid to coaches?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the conversation about paying players. One is a college student, the other is a salaried professional. And if you have a concern about the salaries paid to college coaches, then you have a concern about the free market.

Why does Nebraska pay Bo Pelini, who's never won so much as a conference championship, $2.775 million per year? Because Miami expressed interest in him, and that's what they had to pay to keep their coach in the free market. Basic capitalism.

The only reason this has anything to do with a conversation of paying student athletes, or allowing boosters to buy things from them is that boosters at schools with deeper pockets would suddenly open shop at exorbitant prices, prices that schools without such boosters couldn't afford. EVERY top player would gravitate to these schools, and concerns like playing time would dramatically decrease, because who cares if you're playing when you're getting paid $10k for a jersey you wore on the sidelines?

And you can bet your bottom dollar Pickens at Oklahoma State is going to pay off every kid he can, if for no other reason than to assure he doesn't end up at Oklahoma or Texas. Why wouldn't he?
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;1996252; said:
... if you have a concern about the salaries paid to college coaches, then you have a concern about the free market.
Click to expand...
No, I have a huge concern about the benefits of the free market being doled out selectively at the whim of college presidents, ADs and coaches. Which is what's happening now.

The idea that players who can profit from their stardom will entirely change the schools they go to is ludicrous. First, a scant few "five-star" recruits can reasonably expect before entering school to make mucho dinaro from selling autographs, memorabilia, or from taking non-jobs ("spokespeople"). These guys will continue to go to the big-money schools, which is where they're already going.

Others will need to rely on making a name for themselves on the field before getting to the point where people will want to pay them. (AJ Hawk, Malcolm Jenkins come to mind.) Those guys will think about likelihood of early PT, likelihood of beating out the competition throughout their college years, etc. - just as they do right now.

I'm also not so cynical that I think the lure of the jersey (i.e., are kids fans of the school?) will have no influence on where a kid goes to school. A huge Buckeye fan is unlikely to go to Michigan just because a kid thinks he could make a few more bucks there.

Ultimately, the dollar market for kids to make money under my proposed system will look very similar to the "on-field" market of today; it's very unlikely that today's weak teams will become strong under this system just because of the system. Plus my system offers the very real advantage of being much less hypocritical, more equitable for those who provide primary value (the star players), and avoids all this nonsense about "impermissible benefits," which honestly are currently being doled out to players everywhere.


Oh, and seriously - you don't know who Jay Bilas is? :lol:
 
Upvote 0
I seriously have no idea who Jay Bilas is, and my life is complete without that knowledge. Thinking that knowledge of the existence of Jay Bilas is "important" is pretty silly.

I can see you're married to this idea you have, so I'm not going to waste time trying to change your opinion. It's a pollyannaish way of looking at things, but whatever. Cheers. :drunks:
 
Upvote 0
Jay Bilas is basketball's version of Kirk Herbstreit, except he doesn't just pretend to be intelligent and offers great analysis without bias or toying the company line.


Market value is a great concept until you deal with the reality of destroying almost all non revenue sports. The few schools that can maintain them won't have anyone to play either.

Then there's the matter of decimating the lower level football schools in i-aa and D3. The appeal of playing regularly for mount union for chump change is no longer as attractive when that choice requires turning down better money to skip out on Akron or Buffalo.

The system is a farce and very unfair. But the alternatives are as bad for collegiate sports if not much worse.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1996268; said:
Market value is a great concept until you deal with the reality of destroying almost all non revenue sports. The few schools that can maintain them won't have anyone to play either.
Click to expand...
Why would my proposal destroy non-revenue sports? I think the effect would be negligible. Reminder: I don't propose to pay athletes any salaries or other "stipends" beyond what they're getting now.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1995728; said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

No, you really aren't. If you were, you'd realize that college football players would use a free market to bid up their benefits. Given efficient markets and time, there would be no money left to subsidize your daughter's sport.

Your arguments are incompatible and illogical.
 
Upvote 0
Steve19;1996333; said:
No, you really aren't. If you were, you'd realize that college football players would use a free market to bid up their benefits. Given efficient markets and time, there would be no money left to subsidize your daughter's sport.

3486-9434.gif


Your arguments are incompatible and illogical, and your Mother's a whore....
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Upvote 0
Steve19;1996333; said:
No, you really aren't. If you were, you'd realize that college football players would use a free market to bid up their benefits. Given efficient markets and time, there would be no money left to subsidize your daughter's sport.

Your arguments are incompatible and illogical.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that college football players would bid up their value to the point where nobody would go to games or watch them on TV. Because those revenue streams are what pays for Olympic (non-revenue) sports.

If that happens, college football would obviously also collapse.

This argument holds no water whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1996306; said:
Why would my proposal destroy non-revenue sports? I think the effect would be negligible. Reminder: I don't propose to pay athletes any salaries or other "stipends" beyond what they're getting now.
Click to expand...

A lot of boosters are going to redistribute their giving. I see many donations being halted so they can instead line the pockets of prospects to keep elite players coming . Sure some do this now, but this will take it to another level
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top