• 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
NCAA Reforms

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...-changes.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Big NCAA reform:

On Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors approved a package of sweeping reforms that gives conferences the option of adding more money to scholarship offers, schools the opportunity to award scholarships for multiple years, imposes tougher academic standards on recruits and changes the summer basketball recruiting model.
...

The board approved a measure allowing conferences to vote on providing up to $2,000 in spending money, or what the NCAA calls the full cost-of-attendance. Emmert insists it is not pay-for-play, merely the reintroduction of a stipend that existed for college athletes until 1972. He also compared it to the stipends received by other students who receive non-athletic scholarships.

...

The board also approved a measure that will give individual schools the authority to award scholarships on a multiple-year basis.


Under the current model, those scholarships are renewed annually and can be revoked for any reason. If adopted, schools could guarantee scholarships for the player's entire career and would be unable to revoke it based solely on athletic performance. Scholarships could still be pulled for reasons such as poor grades, academic misconduct or other forms of improper behavior.

​
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Systems_id;2020971; said:
Well at least the NCAA is doing something. I've said this before but I think the fairest way to resolve this is to just let the players take whatever they want as long the benefits aren't tied directly to the University.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just fucking wow.

Rogue boosters who read that just blew a load in their pants...
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2020974; said:
Wow. Just [censored]ing wow.

Rogue boosters who read that just blew a load in their pants...
Click to expand...
Honestly, what is the problem with this? Are you really going to bring up the "it's an unfair competitive advantage" even when the playing field is already so stacked against other schools?
 
Upvote 0
Systems_id;2020979; said:
Honestly, what is the problem with this? Are you really going to bring up the "it's an unfair competitive advantage" even when the playing field is already so stacked against other schools?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that as long as the university isn't involved players should go to the highest bidder? Seriously, you haven't thought this one through.
 
Upvote 0
Systems_id;2020979; said:
Honestly, what is the problem with this? Are you really going to bring up the "it's an unfair competitive advantage" even when the playing field is already so stacked against other schools?
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm still mad tOSU is limited to eighty-five scholarships, the hell with a level playing field.
 
Upvote 0
Bill Lucas;2020981; said:
So you're saying that as long as the university isn't involved players should go to the highest bidder? Seriously, you haven't thought this one through.
Click to expand...
Then please enlighten me, and I'm not being facetious. How would the landscape change so drastically from how it is now if players were allowed to take money, get endorsements, etc.?
 
Upvote 0
Systems_id;2020979; said:
Honestly, what is the problem with this? Are you really going to bring up the "it's an unfair competitive advantage" even when the playing field is already so stacked against other schools?
Click to expand...

The problem is that any OSU "fan" can launder big money to players under the guise of buying players' possessions. Braxton Miller can sell his used jeans for $5,000, his 1995 Camry for $30,000, etc., to boosters disguised as regular fans or even non-fans. The schools with the biggest and fanatical fanbases (read, Ohio State) would have a huge advantage in recruiting because all the recruits would know they could get the most money by going to these shcools. If you thought USC was cleaning up the 5-stars in the early/middle part of the last decade, just how well Ohio State and a few of the other alumni juggernauts do if the NCAA allows players to do what they want.

The current playing field is not as stacked against other schools as you may think. Right now, Rivals has our 2012 recruiting class ranked behind such perennial powers as Vanderbilt, Arizona, Virginia, and Clemson. Scout has us behind Cincinnati, Kentucky, and Baylor. Now, the NCAA investigation is hampering our recruiting, but if recruits knew they could get whatever they want at Ohio State (based our your suggestion), they could give two shits about the investigation and those 5-stars currently committed elsewhere would suddenly become OSU commits, further "unleveling" the playing field.
 
Upvote 0
Obvious?

Systems_id;2020971; said:
Well at least the NCAA is doing something. I've said this before but I think the fairest way to resolve this is to just let the players take whatever they want as long the benefits aren't tied directly to the University.
Click to expand...

Point. Fixing. If you allow boosters to freely give money to players their incentive goes from not getting caught landing big recruits based on their donation, to what they can get in return from that player.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2020991; said:
The problem is that any OSU "fan" can launder big money to players under the guise of buying players' possessions. Braxton Miller can sell his used jeans for $5,000, his 1995 Camry for $30,000, etc., to boosters disguised as regular fans or even non-fans. The schools with the biggest and fanatical fanbases (read, Ohio State) would have a huge advantage in recruiting because all the recruits would know they could get the most money by going to these shcools. If you thought USC was cleaning up the 5-stars in the early/middle part of the last decade, just how well Ohio State and a few of the other alumni juggernauts do if the NCAA allows players to do what they want.
Click to expand...
And this is different from today...how? The Ohio States, Alabamas, Michigans, UT-Austins, Floridas, etc. of the world ALWAYS load up on 5-stars. The current juggernauts of the world will continue to be juggernauts PRECISELY because of the financial clout they command in other areas such as top rate facilities, television exposure, etc. I honestly do not believe that the college football landscape would look that much different than today if players were allowed to take money. Maybe OSU signs two more top 5 classes than they usually do. Maybe not.

The current playing field is not as stacked against other schools as you may think. Right now, Rivals has our 2012 recruiting class ranked behind such perennial powers as Vanderbilt, Arizona, Virginia, and Clemson. Scout has us behind Cincinnati, Kentucky, and Baylor. Now, the NCAA investigation is hampering our recruiting, but if recruits knew they could get whatever they want at Ohio State (based our your suggestion), they could give two [Mark May]s about the investigation and those 5-stars currently committed elsewhere would suddenly become OSU commits, further "unleveling" the playing field.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that because you still have the added factors of severe penalties such as a bowl ban and scholarship reductions as well as a coaching change. I'm sure as hell not committing to OSU if I'm looking at the possibilities of A) missing bowls and B) the coaching staff that recruited me isn't going to be there. Sure OSU would probably have a better recruiting class than they do but I highly doubt it'd be top 20 material if the threat of heavy sanctions and a coaching change loomed over our heads.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top