Should semipro/college players be paid, or allowed to sell their stuff? (NIL and Revenue Sharing)

[Tlangs]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...Cam-Newton-s-game-worn-pants?urn=ncaaf-wp1618

Are we approaching hypocrisy yet?

they are hoping to get $180 grand....hmmmmm.....

 

[BUCKYLE]

It seems to me that one obvious potential issue with that scenario, is that any program that wants to could effectively pay its players a salary simply by giving them a lot of "trinkets" to sell.

That's fairly straight forward in the case of an XBox. But how do you determine the retail price of a gold pants? Or a conference championship ring? Or an autograph? By definition, the "retail" value of those things is whatever you can get someone to pay for them. Which, I think, goes straight back to Jax's point.

So you're saying that since boosters would continue to break rules, the players shouldn't be compensated?

The NCAA could set a price for what a championship ring could be worth. If someone is selling them for more, you punish them the same as they punish them now for selling at all. Boosters would continue to cheat, for sure. At least this way, the players would be allowed to sell the shit they don't want.

 

[Muck]

What about guys on academic schollies? I'm sure they are prohibited from making money off their skills while in college also.

Yes for the most part they are. Students are defacto slave labor for the various sciences do not receive a dime for their contributions, the fruits of their labor belong to the University...and there is a lot more money potential money to be made off of the various patents that come out of those programs than the football teams bring in.

I really don't think CFB players should get a paycheck. Just don't think selling their shit should be a big deal, so long as they aren't selling a dime for a dollar.

I don't disagree but then I don't think that going to a bowl game means you should get a free shopping trip to the Pasadena Best Buy either.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Yes for the most part they are. Students are defacto slave labor for the various sciences do not receive a dime for their contributions, the fruits of their labor belong to the University...and there is a lot more money potential money to be made off of the various patents that come out of those programs than the football teams bring in.

If a chem major (or what the fuck ever) makes a new fuckin' chemical, the university owns it. I know. But if that talented chemist wants to make money at a job in his field during the time he's at school, he's allowed. TP should at least be able to get a gig coaching QB's at a summer camp. Under current NCAA rules, he's forbidden.

I don't disagree but then I don't think that going to a bowl game means you should get a free shopping trip to the Pasadena Best Buy either.

But they do. The NCAA has ok'd this. The Fiesta Bowl can give the kids an xbox, just not a tOSU alum. That's where the real hypocrisy lies. You're allowed to recieve gifts, but only from the people that line the NCAA's pockets.

 

[zincfinger]

So you're saying that since boosters would continue to break rules, the players shouldn't be compensated?

No, I'm saying that if you allow schools to give players trinkets, and allow the players to sell the trinkets for cash, you are indirectly allowing the schools to pay the players cash. That has nothing to do with boosters.

The NCAA could set a price for what a championship ring could be worth. If someone is selling them for more, you punish them the same as they punish them now for selling at all. Boosters would continue to cheat, for sure. At least this way, the players would be allowed to sell the shit they don't want.

I'd agree that if the NCAA gets into the business of defining approved market values for championship rings and such, that obviates the potential for boosters to pay outrageous sums to players via faux "purchases" (which wasn't what I was getting at in the first place). But if the NCAA is going to be a market arbiter like that, isn't that just a roundabout way of the NCAA giving a rough determination as to how much schools can pay their players?

 

[jwinslow]

They should be, but it's too problematic to allow it.

Kyle, the problem is teams could start handing out trinkets for 6 different rivalry games, for winning a starting spot, etc, and set a reasonable but pricey market value for those items and sell them off as an indirect salary to players.

 

[zincfinger]

If a chem major (or what the fuck ever) makes a new fuckin' chemical, the university owns it. I know. But if that talented chemist wants to make money at a job in his field during the time he's at school, he's allowed. TP should at least be able to get a gig coaching QB's at a summer camp. Under current NCAA rules, he's forbidden.

Perhaps its useful here to make a distinction between undergraduate students, and graduate students. An undergraduate chemistry student can, at best, get some kind of lab tech job in industry. Which is no more lucrative than the types of general employment that a football player or any other student can get. A graduate student in chemistry might (might) be able to get something a little more lucrative (but until he's finished his graduate degree, he only has a B.S. in chemistry), but given the fact that he's spending 60+ hours/week on his graduate research, this is completely unrealistic. My point is that, your argument may have some technical merit (mostly if you allow the comparison between professional graduate students and undergraduate athlete/students), but in practical terms I'm not sure it supports your point.

 

[BUCKYLE]

They should be, but it's too problematic to allow it.

Kyle, the problem is teams could start handing out trinkets for 6 different rivalry games, for winning a starting spot, etc, and set a reasonable but pricey market value for those items and sell them off as an indirect salary to players.

I fully understand the issues. It's just ridiculous when the only argument against players getting a little extra cash is that someone will exploit it. I don't pretend to have the answers. I just know that "someone may abuse it" isn't a valid argument against it, nor is "anyone that gets paid will just want more". Just my two cents.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Perhaps its useful here to make a distinction between undergraduate students, and graduate students. An undergraduate chemistry student can, at best, get some kind of lab tech job in industry. Which is no more lucrative than the types of general employment that a football player or any other student can get. A graduate student in chemistry might (might) be able to get something a little more lucrative (but until he's finished his graduate degree, he only has a B.S. in chemistry), but given the fact that he's spending 60+ hours/week on his graduate research, this is completely unrealistic. My point is that, your argument may have some technical merit (mostly if you allow the comparison between professional graduate students and undergraduate athlete/students), but in practical terms I'm not sure it supports your point.

So because a chem student can't make good money means TP shouldn't be allowed to coach at a summer camp?

 

[zincfinger]

It's just ridiculous when the only argument against players getting a little extra cash is that someone will exploit it

The only argument is not that someone might exploit it. 1) The system you suggest is definitionally identical to pay-cash-to-players-scheme; as such calling it "exploitation" seems unfounded. 2) "A little extra cash" is vague. I think what people are concerned about is converting college football into minor league professional football (in my opinion, that's what Coop got fired for, moreso than losing to Michigan). What's "a little extra cash"? How much salary is a "stipend"? Make the players pros, and at that point it becomes no longer college football; it becomes AAA football. People aren't interested in watching AAA football, or at least that's what I'd guess.

 

[zincfinger]

So because a chem student can't make good money means TP shouldn't be allowed to coach at a summer camp?

No, you're the one who brought up the chem student as a rationale why TP should be allowed to coach at a summer camp. In my view, the two things are completely unrelated (particularly if you're comparing TP to a graduate student in chemistry). I was simply pointing out that, in contrast to your suggestion, the chem student is actually not in a better financial situation than TP is.

 

[BUCKYLE]

No, you're the one who brought up the chem student as a rationale why TP should be allowed to coach at a summer camp. In my view, the two things are completely unrelated (particularly if you're comparing TP to a graduate student in chemistry). I was simply pointing out that, in contrast to your suggestion, the chem student is actually not in a better financial situation than TP is.

He is because he can get a job doing something he likes to do. The money he gets from that job can go to a road trip or a date.

Between school and football, I'd imagine a D1 athlete puts more hrs in a week than a grad student. But I could be wrong.

 

[zincfinger]

He is because he can get a job doing something he likes to do. The money he gets from that job can go to a road trip or a date.

I don't know what you're referring to here, or what comparison you're trying to make.

Between school and football, I'd imagine a D1 athlete puts more hrs in a week than a grad student. But I could be wrong.

It perhaps depends on the field. But an above-average graduate student in the hard sciences is spending, at minimum, 60 hours per week in the lab, probably more like 80-100. I doubt TP spends more than that on football.

 

[BB73]

The cases of Tom Zbikowski and Jeremy Bloom come to mind.

Bloom was unable to play college football at Colorado if he was paid endorsement money for being the world champion moguls skier that he was.

Tom Zbikowski was allowed to have a professional fight in 2006 while still at ND. (Despite the fact that most of you never knew he was a boxer, since the TV guys never mentioned it).

If both of those NCAA decisions had been just the opposite, it would have made more sense to me. Bloom was a world champion who also happened to play football, Zbikowski would have been an unknown boxer if he hadn't also been a football player at ND.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I don't know what you're referring to here, or what comparison you're trying to make.

It perhaps depends on the field. But an above-average graduate student in the hard sciences is spending, at minimum, 60 hours per week in the lab, probably more like 80-100. I doubt TP spends more than that on football.

I'm saying that a chem student can get a shitty lab assistant job doing chemistry shit. TP can't coach QB's in summer camp for fear he may make too much money.

An above average football player spends quite a bit of time on football. Hell, I was an average HS football player and I had practice six days a week for four hrs a day plus about seven hours on gameday. So a HS football player, on average, spends 30+ hrs a week on just football. I can't imagine TP spending less. That's not counting his class work.