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

[Systems_id]

I have some sympathy for that argument but the obvious problem is that it surely leads to someone selling their used toilet paper for $10,000 (or something less extreme but you get the point) because boosters are using purchases like that as a cover for golden handshakes.

Again I ask, why is this such a big deal? So what a player gets $10,000 for his ring? It's not going to tip the balance of power further than it already is if we're talking about an unfair competitive advantage. It'd merely make the farce that is amateur college football a little less of a farce.

This is the single biggest thing that pisses me off about College Football. We treat the players like professionals, worship them like professionals, and scrutinize them like professionals and it's all good. But when you dare suggest that the players should be paid like professionals then people cry "B-b-but what about the purity of the game?" You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Personally, I think it's a weak point. I have no doubt that parents of players want to watch their kids play live, and that some of them can't afford to do it for all road games, or can only afford it with difficulty. The simple fact is, we all have things in life that we would like to have, but either can't afford or can only afford with difficulty. Why should the desire of parents of college athletes to watch their kids compete be put in the privileged position of forcing other people to pay for it? There doesn't seem to be any justification to do it only for football and men's basketball, you'd have to do it for every sport. And travel costs aren't just airfare, you're talking hotels, perhaps food. And really, why just parents; why not grandparents, siblings? After awhile, you're talking some pretty serious money. Nothing whatsoever against players' parents, but I don't see what entitles them to see their kids play on other peoples' dimes.

Because their kids are the ones that bring in the fucking dimes.

 

[OhioState2110]

My thoughts are that if you win a ring or something, you should have the option of either getting the ring/trophy or take the money that would [strike]of[/strike] have been used to purchase one. It would be an extra incentive I guess. As for autographs I'd say no, along with jerseys, shoulder pads, ETC.

 

[zincfinger]

Because their kids are the ones that bring in the fucking dimes.

There's really no way to determine how many dimes any given football player brought to Ohio State. But let's suppose for argument's sake that super-stud-quarterback brought in a lot. Even given that assumption, there's no realistic way to argue that the majority of players appreciably alter the bottom line of the football program or the athletic department. So, based on your rationale, are you going to just pay for the parents of super-stud-quarterback and super-stud-tailback to travel on the taxpayers' dime? Or are you going to extend that privilege to all players, despite the fact that the vast majority of them had no impact on the financial bottom line?

For that matter, are you going to provide cash payments to the parents of graduate students (and some undergrads) whose kids' research brought in substantial sums of grant money? If your rationale is, "you brought cash to the University, therefore the University must bring cash to you", that would seem to be just.

 

[BUCKYLE]

There's really no way to determine how many dimes any given football player brought to Ohio State. But let's suppose for argument's sake that super-stud-quarterback brought in a lot. Even given that assumption, there's no realistic way to argue that the majority of players appreciably alter the bottom line of the football program or the athletic department. So, based on your rationale, are you going to just pay for the parents of super-stud-quarterback and super-stud-tailback to travel on the taxpayers' dime? Or are you going to extend that privilege to all players, despite the fact that the vast majority of them had no impact on the financial bottom line?

For that matter, are you going to provide cash payments to the parents of graduate students (and some undergrads) whose kids' research brought in substantial sums of grant money? If your rationale is, "you brought cash to the University, therefore the University must bring cash to you", that would seem to be just.

Football is a team sport. Most players contribute something to the team. It's not hard to figure up how much money the football program brings in. The tax payers wouldn't be paying a fucking thing. Use part of the concession profits to pay for the parents of team members to attend games.

 

[zincfinger]

Football is a team sport. Most players contribute something to the team. It's not hard to figure up how much money the football program brings in. The tax payers wouldn't be paying a fucking thing. Use part of the concession profits to pay for the parents of team members to attend games.

OK, let's assume you can cover that cost from the concessioniers. If your philosophy is that all players contribute to the team (even the 4th stringer who never goes to class and never sees the field), doesn't it follow that all athletes contribute to the athletic department? In short, what is the justification for forcing the concessioniers to provide this service to the football players only, and not other athletes. It can't be merely revenue, since the fourth string left guard doesn't really bring any more revenue to the department or the University than the second-seat starboard rower on the heavyweight men's 4 boat does.

And this still doesn't explain why, say, metallurgical engineering students (or dozens others one could name), who bring in millions of dollars of grant money shouldn't get similar financial considerations.

 

[BUCKYLE]

OK, let's assume you can cover that cost from the concessioniers. If your philosophy is that all players contribute to the team (even the 4th stringer who never goes to class and never sees the field), doesn't it follow that all athletes contribute to the athletic department? In short, what is the justification for forcing the concessioniers to provide this service to the football players only, and not other athletes. It can't be merely revenue, since the fourth string left guard doesn't really bring any more revenue to the department or the University than the second-seat starboard rower on the heavyweight men's 4 boat does.

Scout teamers sure as fuck contribute. Have you ever played football? Practicing against those "4th stringers that...never go to class(wtf?)" makes the super star QB's better every week. And as a whole, the football program pays for all other sports, so don't bring them into the discussion. The crew team or whatever the fuck it's called...well, their coach is paid by football profits, so if they want their parents at their...uh...matches, then their coach can take a pay cut.

 

[zincfinger]

Scout teamers sure as fuck contribute. Have you ever played football? Practicing against those "4th stringers that...never go to class(wtf?)" makes the super star QB's better every week. And as a whole, the football program pays for all other sports, so don't bring them into the discussion. The crew team or whatever the fuck it's called...well, their coach is paid by football profits, so if they want their parents at their...uh...matches, then their coach can take a pay cut.

You're changing the meaning of "contribute". Scout players "contribute". Players who aren't good enough to meaningfully contribute to the scout team may still "contribute" academically, via APR, or by having outstanding character. But what we were talking about was profitability of college sports teams (since you brought that up as the critical factor dictating that tax payers [or hot dog vendors] should pay for parents of players to see their kids play). Fourth stringers don't really contribute to that. Those guys are replaceable, and scout teams could be populated with different guys with no revenue dropoff. If Terrelle Pryor were gone last year, there would arguably have been a revenue dropoff - although I'm skeptical of its magnitude. If the fourth string left guard were gone last year, there wouldn't have been a dropoff by any but the most strained interpretation. Face it, if you want to make it purely about money, not all football players qualify. And if you want all football players to qualify for the enhanced other-people-pay-for-their-families'-expenses program, then all athletes in all other sports should as well. And a hell of a lot of non-athlete students who bring revenue to the University, too. Moreso, really. There are guys in the physics (or chemistry, etc.) department, who bring more money to the University than any players on the scout team do.

 

[MaxBuck]

... metallurgical engineering students (or dozens others one could name), who bring in millions of dollars of grant money...

I don't wish to burst anyone's bubble, but undergraduate students don't bring in shit with respect to grant money. Undergraduate students in metallurgy or whatever other academic discipline you choose to name are not money-makers for the university.

 

[zincfinger]

I don't wish to burst anyone's bubble, but undergraduate students don't bring in shit with respect to grant money. Undergraduate students in metallurgy or whatever other academic discipline you choose to name are not money-makers for the university.

Yes, in fact, some do. It's not the norm, but it happens. And what I asked was whether this rationale would demand that "the parents of graduate students (and some undergrads)" also receive cash payments.

 

[BUCKYLE]

You're changing the meaning of "contribute". Scout players "contribute". Players who aren't good enough to meaningfully contribute to the scout team may still "contribute" academically, via APR, or by having outstanding character. But what we were talking about was profitability of college sports teams (since you brought that up as the critical factor dictating that tax payers [or hot dog vendors] should pay for parents of players to see their kids play). Fourth stringers don't really contribute to that. Those guys are replaceable, and scout teams could be populated with different guys with no revenue dropoff. If Terrelle Pryor were gone last year, there would arguably have been a revenue dropoff - although I'm skeptical of its magnitude. If the fourth string left guard were gone last year, there wouldn't have been a dropoff by any but the most strained interpretation. Face it, if you want to make it purely about money, not all football players qualify. And if you want all football players to qualify for the enhanced other-people-pay-for-their-families'-expenses program, then all athletes in all other sports should as well. And a hell of a lot of non-athlete students who bring revenue to the University, too. Moreso, really. There are guys in the physics (or chemistry, etc.) department, who bring more money to the University than any players on the scout team do.

Quit saying taxpayers. It makes you sound stupid. The football program generates enough revenue to fund all other sports. So fuck the other sports. If they want money, start having people show up at their games.

 

[zincfinger]

Quit saying taxpayers. It makes you sound stupid. The football program generates enough revenue to fund all other sports. So fuck the other sports. If they want money, start having people show up at their games.

Tax. Payers. Or hot dog vendors. Your choice. Anyway, I think you're willfully missing the point. What we're talking about here is Tom Crean's statement that it would be more fair for athletes' parents to have travel expenses paid to see their kids play (an expense which would be born by tax. payers. Or in your world, hot dog vendors), followed by your view that this should be done only for football players' parents, because the football team generates money. But not all football players generate money. Most don't. So, in your world, the tax-paying hot dog vendors should pay travel expenses for the parents of the football star players only, or the starters only, or the players who see the field on Saturday only. For the rest, if they want money, make the starting lineup.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Tax. Payers. Or hot dog vendors. Your choice. Anyway, I think you're willfully missing the point. What we're talking about here is Tom Crean's statement that it would be more fair for athletes' parents to have travel expenses paid to see their kids play (an expense which would be born by tax. payers. Or in your world, hot dog vendors), followed by your view that this should be done only for football players' parents, because the football team generates money. But not all football players generate money. Most don't. So, in your world, the tax-paying hot dog vendors should pay travel expenses for the parents of the football star players only, or the starters only, or the players who see the field on Saturday only. For the rest, if they want money, make the starting lineup.

Are you saying that the money would be from a tax levied against the general public? Or just that it happens to be people that pay taxes that buy tOSU gear, tickets, concessions, watch every game on tv that they don't attend, travel to bowl games..etc, etc?

 

[zincfinger]

Are you saying that the money would be from a tax levied against the general public? Or just that it happens to be people that pay taxes that buy tOSU gear, tickets, concessions, watch every game on tv that they don't attend, travel to bowl games..etc, etc?

You're fixating on the tax payer issue, and that's really not the point. As far as tax payers goes, the money for the parents-travel-free program is almost certainly going to be paid by the University , and the University is largely funded by taxes. The fact that the football program produces net revenue is irrelevant. It all goes into a general fund, and any additional expenditures diminish that fund, requiring more revenue, more donations, and yes, more tax money. But forget where the revenue comes from, whether tax payers, hot dog vendors, or the hidden parents-travel-free slush fund. Regardless, you're talking about some third party paying parents' travel expenses. And you're basing it on the notion that the parents' kids are generating revenue. My question is, if that's really your basis, doesn't that require that it be restricted to the parents of kids who actually generate revenue, as opposed to being teammates of kids who generate revenue?

 

[muffler dragon]

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoo...ould-open-door-to-a-union-and-a-strike-072411

There's a dark side to paying student-athletes to play college football.
Collective bargaining.
According to Michael Buckner, an attorney specializing in NCAA enforcement investigations and compliance issues, paying student-athletes could result in the formation of a players union.
And that could lead to affiliation with powerful existing unions such as the Teamsters, as well as possible strikes to try to gain a substantial piece of college football's financial pie.
That pie is "in the billions of dollars" according to Forbes sports business analyst Kristi Dosh.
"Profits for just the schools broke the $1 billion mark in 2009," Dosh said.
With BCS conferences making lucrative deals with networks for broadcasting rights, the pie keeps getting bigger. Since the student-athletes can't legally grab a piece of it, many have turned to street agents, runners and boosters to supplement their income.
If the rules-makers can't stop a kid from trading pants for tattoos, how can they expect to prevent an 18-year-old ? with maybe $100 in his checking account ? from listening to a union rep's lure of riches?
"A strike by college athletes would make the current work stoppages in the NFL and NBA look like child's play, and would impact more people and communities," Buckner said.
"The average number of people at college football games on any given Saturday is five million," Dosh said. That's a significant jump from the NFL's average stadium gameday attendance of 1.1 million.
"Aside from the money generated just on game days, there's advertising, television revenues and licensing. The number of towns and enterprises [a work stoppage] touches would have much more of a far-reaching impact [than an NFL lockout]."
Penn State University's surrounding area is an example of the adverse effect a work stoppage could have on a local economy. According to the 2010 census, there are 42,034 residents in State College, Pa., but the Nittany Lions' Beaver Stadium can swell to over 107,000 fans on game days.
Jose Felix, an employee at Marriott's Residence Inn State College, said half of the hotel's yearly profit comes from college football season, which is roughly six weekends a year.
Penn State football season is to them what December is to retailers. You can get a room right now for $169, but on game days, "it starts at $349 and for bigger games, $399 and up," Felix said. "You have to call at least a year in advance for reservations."
How could paying student-athletes potentially lead to them unionizing?
"If the National Labor Relations Act or Congress defines college athletes as employees and universities are employers (and also rules that other provisions of the National Labor Relations Act apply to the relationship), then student-athletes would enjoy numerous rights, including the right to collectively bargain," Buckner said.
"Receiving additional money does not by itself make a student-athlete an employee. Federal labor law must be applied to determine if student-athletes would be considered employees of their respective universities. Previous decisions of the National Labor Relations Board and federal courts have not defined the relationship between universities and college athletes as an employer-employee relationship."
But those decisions didn't reflect student-athletes being paid, other than receiving scholarships.
To unionize, student-athletes would have to file a petition with the NLRB to start organized labor proceedings, and 30 percent of them would have to attest that they were interested in forming a union, according to Nancy Cleeland, Director of Public Affairs for the NLRB.
If the student-athletes' financial-aid contracts were separate from their compensation contracts, becoming designated as employees would be easier to accomplish.
And that would open the door to forming a union.
Which could then open the door to organized labor making inroads into college football.
Dan Stormer, a top attorney in California specializing in labor and employment issues, when asked whether existing unions would be interested in college football, said "Absolutely. ... It could be a teachers' assistant union, it could be the Teamsters ... it could be anything," he said.
A college football strike would have a snowball effect on the rest of college sports, which rely heavily on football to fund their individual programs.
"You take football out of the equation, and the athletic departments of BCS conferences can't function," Dosh said.
There are still some issues that could stop the pay-for-play movement.
The biggest hurdle is Title IX, a federal law which states, in part, that no person under an educational umbrella shall be denied benefits on the basis of gender.
"Any plan to pay student-athletes would have to adhere to federal law," Buckner said. If football players are paid, then somewhere, student-athletes in a women's sport will also have to be compensated.
The other big issue is the difficulty some smaller schools would face in coming up with the money to pay student-athletes.
"The Big Ten Conference discussed a proposal that would pay student-athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's 2011 spring meetings," Buckner said. "Unfortunately, not all schools could afford to do so."
The prospect of a college football work stoppage is a fan's worst nightmare. Hearing crickets chirp on fall Saturdays across the country from Eugene, Ore., to Norman, Okla., to South Bend, Ind., to Baton Rouge, La., should give the pay-to-play movement pause.
Be careful what you wish for.