• 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!

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
The problem as I see it with paying athletes is: What happens to all the other scholarship athletes? Most scholarship sports lose money, but benefit from football making money -- which comes in large part from schools making money off the players. So if we start paying athletes their market value, then that's good for those players, but unfortunately varsity sports would, as far as I can tell, end. Which maybe is what should happen -- it's what the market says should happen -- but the idea of the cross country team, the baseball team, swimming and diving, golf, everything getting the axe... Well that's probably what would happen... Is it worth it? Hard to tell.

Then you move on to, "well maybe we should pay athletes, just not quite their market-value, so we can have the best of both worlds".. But then they're not amateurs and they're not getting their fair share either, so it's maybe the worst of both worlds. Hard to say what to do.
 
Upvote 0
xcrunner;1997338; said:
The problem as I see it with paying athletes is: What happens to all the other scholarship athletes? Most scholarship sports lose money, but benefit from football making money -- which comes in large part from schools making money off the players. So if we start paying athletes their market value, then that's good for those players, but unfortunately varsity sports would, as far as I can tell, end. Which maybe is what should happen -- it's what the market says should happen -- but the idea of the cross country team, the baseball team, swimming and diving, golf, everything getting the axe... Well that's probably what would happen... Is it worth it? Hard to tell.

Then you move on to, "well maybe we should pay athletes, just not quite their market-value, so we can have the best of both worlds".. But then they're not amateurs and they're not getting their fair share either, so it's maybe the worst of both worlds. Hard to say what to do.
Click to expand...
Why would allowing football players to be paid sponsors for Farmers Insurance (or even straight-up paying them) cause the demise of varsity cross-country running?
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1997373; said:
Why would allowing football players to be paid sponsors for Farmers Insurance (or even straight-up paying them) cause the demise of varsity cross-country running?
Click to expand...

There are two distinct topics in play in this thread.

One is the the direct payment of athletes by the schools - that would affect the budgets of other sports and have to deal with Title IX issues. I don't see that happening in the next several years.

The other is allowing students to market themselves and/or sell their own property. I think it's debatable whether that would hurt the budgets of the athletic departments. It would allow boosters to openly overpay for things like kids autographs, in order to have interaction with the athletes and to influence future recruits, who would certainly find out that the starting QB/RB/WR at school ABC can make X thousand dollars per year. Would the boosters giving money openly and directly to players reduce the amounts that they would otherwise give to the schools?

Some believe a lot of that is happening now, and only those smart enough to cheat and not get caught by the NCAA are prospering. Some also believe that the current rules create resentment from many college athletes, and they violate NCAA rules in order to 'get their share' of the huge dollars currently going to colleges, coaches, and the NCAA.

Some believe that this current environment is damaging to college football because of all the negative publicity associated with programs who are found to be in violation of NCAA rules, or at least have had prominent athletes that have violated NCAA rules. Some believe relaxing those rules would reduce the violations and eliminate most of the negative publicity that's been so prevalent lately.

Allowing things like that would presumably increase the difference between the elite programs and the also-rans. Some believe it would damage college athletics by making it more like professional sports.

Opinions will obviously differ. I'm withholding mine for the time being, and simply clarifying what I believe to be the relevant issues in order to foster further discussion.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1997396; said:
There are two distinct topics in play in this thread.

One is the the direct payment of athletes by the schools - that would affect the budgets of other sports and have to deal with Title IX issues. I don't see that happening in the next several years.

The other is allowing students to market themselves and/or sell their own property.
Click to expand...

I'm for a reasonable stipend payment; but not the "marketing option". I don't agree with Spurrier on a per game rate: http://townhall.blogs.gainesville.c...ould-college-football-players-be-compensated/

A recent study by the National College Players Association and Drexel University Department of Sport Management estimated that the average college basketball or football player generates nearly $121,000 in annual revenues. Should players be paid for making that kind of impact on their programs' bottom line?

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/sports-group-252/topics/should-college-football-players-paid
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1997396; said:
There are two distinct topics in play in this thread...
Click to expand...
That's a good break down. And I agree that allowing endorsements vs. having schools directly paying players constitutes two largely separate issues. And for disclosure's sake, I'm definitely not in favor of the second, and probably not in favor of the first. But I'm still left wondering how, even in theory, either of those schemes would result in the actual destruction of other varsity sports (maybe he meant it in some more abstract sense, but I'd still question the relevance). The only possible way I can imagine is if schools paid their football players out of funds saved by cutting other sports. I'm not sure if that's what the original commenter on this point was suggesting would be the likely mechanism.
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio;1997411; said:
I'm for a reasonable stipend payment; but not the "marketing option".
Click to expand...
Why? That option would, in fact, cannibalize Olympic sports and opens all kinds of cans of worms.

If you pay them, they become professionals and I'm not sure you could prevent them from profiting in other ways at that point anyhow.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1997437; said:
The only possible way I can imagine is if schools paid their football players out of funds saved by cutting other sports. I'm not sure if that's what the original commenter on this point was suggesting would be the likely mechanism.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I meant. Let's say the school decides not to pay their athletes anything, but just gives them the rights to all money earned from selling their jerseys. Right now, a lot of that money goes to funding other varsity sports, almost all of which lose money. So if the players got that money instead, I think it's likely (but I'm not sure about this) that a lot of these other programs would get cut. Unless, as BB said, perhaps making everything more open and legal would actually increase total flow of cash into the system from boosters and whatnot.

But the basic concern I have is this -- the money has to come from somewhere. I, and probably others, often think of "The University" or "The Athletic Department" as taking advantage of gifted athletes by making tons of money off of their names and not giving the athletes any of it. But the reality is that it's often other student-athletes that are taking advantage of those gifted athletes, as their program is allowed to stay financially afloat thanks to the football team. Whether or not that changes the dynamic is unclear -- it still seems to me like the gifted athletes are being taken advantage of, but I just can't see how else the other varsity sports would get funded, and a university system with no varsity sports other than football and basketball seems very wrong to me.
 
Upvote 0
SI.com

NCAA weighing $2,000 payments to student athletes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NCAA President Mark Emmert says he supports a proposal to allow conferences to increase grants to student athletes by $2,000, "to more closely approach" the full cost of attending college, beyond the athletic scholarships athletes receive for tuition, fees, room, board and books.

Emmert tells the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics on Monday that the proposal will be finalized this week and he'll ask the NCAA to support it. He noted that student athletes have limited opportunities to work outside the classroom and playing fields, and that the current model of athletic scholarship hasn't changed for 40 years.


Emmert says he'll also ask the board to allow colleges and universities to provide multiyear grants, instead of year-to-year grants.

Cont'd ...
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Muck;2019285; said:
I'm cool with raising the the amount of scholarship payments....but has anyone run the numbers on how it would effect smaller schools with smaller athletic budgets vs the power houses?
Click to expand...

Who cares about the smaller schools? If they don't have the revenue, they need to build bigger stadiums or simply fill up their current stadiums.

Fuck 'em.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top