And so it begins....
Comments
-
They get college scholarships. In some instances that's worth more than $100,000, not to mention the free publicity, the fame, the chance to play in the NFL. Hope that clues you in.doogsinparadise said:Paying the players is the last stop in what has become a very long trip through the NCAA's hypocrisy regarding athlete eligibility, and is obviously the most extreme response. If you don't like that then what about allowing athletes the chance to make money off of their name and likeness, like other Americans. This whole libertarian "well they don't have to play" bullshit is childish. Neither do the coaches, yet they're making millions each year. No one is suggesting that the players should be making $30k a year, just that some portion of the billions of dollars they create for college sports be passed down.
-
So you're one of the bitches that thinks we shouldn't get to play NCAA football on our Xboxes/playstations anymore? Thanks, fucking Grinch. That was a great game. I don't give a fuck if Laquintas Linebacker from UTEP who never made it to the NFL thinks he should get paid even though the dude that wears his number on the video game has dreads and not a bald head. You got paid with your school scholarship, now go get a real job and be happy you even made it on the video game.CollegeDoog said:
Fortunately O'bannon vs NCAA should solve that.Mosster47 said:doogsinparadise said:Paying the players is the last stop in what has become a very long trip through the NCAA's hypocrisy regarding athlete eligibility, and is obviously the most extreme response. If you don't like that then what about allowing athletes the chance to make money off of their name and likeness, like other Americans. This whole libertarian "well they don't have to play" bullshit is childish. Neither do the coaches, yet they're making millions each year. No one is suggesting that the players should be making $30k a year, just that some portion of the billions of dollars they create for college sports be passed down.
I've been saying this forever. Johnny Football is a multimillion dollar name and should be paid as such. The 3rd string guard at ATM is worth a scholarship, barely. If these kids can go out and make their own money then they should he able to.
Ridiculous how much money EA sports made off these guys. -
Damone is right you're dreaming if you think the feds will stand by while male football players get paid.
But let's pay the players and ride unicorns and give everyone a raise a free healthcare while we burn biomass. Yipee -
Or you could let all college athletes license their names. Do you at least see the merit in that?RaceBannon said:Damone is right you're dreaming if you think the feds will stand by while male football players get paid.
But let's pay the players and ride unicorns and give everyone a raise a free healthcare while we burn biomass. Yipee
Johnny football should already have millions in his pocket for endorsements, jersey sales, etc.
At the moment all that money goes to the NCAA or AD's. -
What do they do with that money? Does Mr. Burns keep it?
Colleges are ripping you and your generation off far more than they are ripping off football players. -
Of course they keep it. They earned it.RaceBannon said:What do they do with that money? Does Mr. Burns keep it?
Colleges are ripping you and your generation off far more than they are ripping off football players.
Let's not perpetuate the student athlete myth. Around half of football and basketball players don't even read at a high school level when they graduate college. -
Do you have any thoughts of your own? If you don't want to "perpetuate the student athlete myth" (great talking point as always) then take the game out of the university all together and the players can get paid what they are worth - nothing until they make the NFLCollegeDoog said:
Of course they keep it. They earned it.RaceBannon said:What do they do with that money? Does Mr. Burns keep it?
Colleges are ripping you and your generation off far more than they are ripping off football players.
Let's not perpetuate the student athlete myth. Around half of football and basketball players don't even read at a high school level when they graduate college.
Watched any A league baseball lately?
I asked where all this money that the universities are ripping the players off for goes to. The Hooker and Blow Center didn't build itself.
You don't even care that colleges have huge endowments that should make tuition free but instead they rig the price in cahoots with the college loan scam so you leave school a hundred grand in debt with a shit education.
Instead let's worry about guys getting a free education and the best training in the world and contacts that last a lifetime. They are fucking SLAVES -
It's free but it's hardly an education.RaceBannon said:
Do you have any thoughts of your own? If you don't want to "perpetuate the student athlete myth" (great talking point as always) then take the game out of the university all together and the players can get paid what they are worth - nothing until they make the NFLCollegeDoog said:
Of course they keep it. They earned it.RaceBannon said:What do they do with that money? Does Mr. Burns keep it?
Colleges are ripping you and your generation off far more than they are ripping off football players.
Let's not perpetuate the student athlete myth. Around half of football and basketball players don't even read at a high school level when they graduate college.
Watched any A league baseball lately?
I asked where all this money that the universities are ripping the players off for goes to. The Hooker and Blow Center didn't build itself.
You don't even care that colleges have huge endowments that should make tuition free but instead they rig the price in cahoots with the college loan scam so you leave school a hundred grand in debt with a shit education.
Instead let's worry about guys getting a free education and the best training in the world and contacts that last a lifetime. They are fucking SLAVES
And it's the best training in the world for the ~3% of D1 football players that actually play in the pros.
No one is saying they're slaves. Why shouldn't they be able to profit off their name?
Branding is a pretty low percentage of AD revenue. http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue
If players were to be paid, donations would likely skyrocket because the competition to get the best players will be even higher.
The economic studies find college football will be just fine.
The only issue is whether Mark Emmert will fuck it up, which, as we know, is likely.
-
To get what you want you have to take it out of the colleges and the NCAA and away from Title 9. College football is what it is because of the college. Nobody gives a shit about college baseball and basketball is following.
I don't care either way, I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
Title 9 and university presidents aren't going to allow football players to get paid unequally to other student athletes. Universities won't make them employees because of the liability. They will just drop the sport.
Like most of your ideas, it is unworkable in the real world. Just something else to whine and complain about.
Where is the money going? Still waiting on that answer. There has to be someone pocketing all these millions that universities are hiding to exploit these poor athletes and their free education and training.
Could it be the same folks that are exploiting ALL students with ridiculous tuition and killing debt thanks to the student loan scam? Oh wait, student loans are another great idea you love I'm sure.
The UW cost 180$ a quarter when I went there. See a correlation between the government subsidizing tuition and tuition skyrocketing? Probably not. That's a real issue. -
Nice point race. Here comes the pay - scale , gender equity and wage gap issues. Should Suzy the sorority sloot, who can barely walk her dimpled ass down the balance beam, make as much glue as the starting QB? I love the idea of unionizing. But there best be differing scales per sport.RaceBannon said:Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
-
Inquiring minds want to know the last time CollegeDoog supported the Arena League with cash monies? Merchandise sales? Hotdogs, beers and a rickshaw ride?RaceBannon said:I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
-
As usual on this board, Race and Collegedoog each have half of the argument right, but are too into the horse race to agree.
-
But my half is better
-
RaceBannon said:
To get what you want you have to take it out of the colleges and the NCAA and away from Title 9. College football is what it is because of the college. Nobody gives a shit about college baseball and basketball is following.
Big time college football is so embedded in culture that a move from amateurism would hardly harm its popularity. You're exactly right. It's the college. Fans will watch and pay because they want their college to win. Not because of some phony myth of amateurism. When the money is opened up for these players the competition between schools will see a massive increase in donations. Look at what Johnny Football did for A&M (record donations) or Saban for Alabama ("best investment Alabama ever made"). Imagine now that even more money can be thrown around.
I don't care either way, I just know you're dreaming if you think anyone will make any money in minor league football.
It's not minor league football. Christ. College football is pretty much standalone from the NFL. People said the same shit about baseball and moving revenue towards the players.
Title 9 and university presidents aren't going to allow football players to get paid unequally to other student athletes. Universities won't make them employees because of the liability. They will just drop the sport.
So how about licensing deals then? Letting all players across all sports use their likeness for jersey sales, endorsement deals. That wouldn't be affected by title 9. You've yet to address that.
Like most of your ideas, it is unworkable in the real world. Just something else to whine and complain about.
Where is the money going? Still waiting on that answer. There has to be someone pocketing all these millions that universities are hiding to exploit these poor athletes and their free education and training.
The money is going to the head coaches, administrators, and the people at the NCAA who are part of this $8 billion dollar industry. The share of money would be somewhat shifted away from these people and to the players. Studies show that all parties can afford this.
Could it be the same folks that are exploiting ALL students with ridiculous tuition and killing debt thanks to the student loan scam? Oh wait, student loans are another great idea you love I'm sure.
The UW cost 180$ a quarter when I went there. See a correlation between the government subsidizing tuition and tuition skyrocketing? Probably not. That's a real issue.
Great deflecting because you suck at arguing the actual issue that's relevant on a college football message board. -
You completely missed the point. Not for the first time. You bolded replies to my points that didn't reply to my point. You just spouted your talking points.
Why not try again and actually respond to what I said with your own thoughts if you have any.
Hint - nowhere did I say that people wouldn't watch if college football wasn't amateur
It will be minor league football when colleges drop
Fuck you're a moron dude.. -
Colleges won't drop. The money will always be there. That's exactly what I responded too.RaceBannon said:You completely missed the point. Not for the first time. You bolded replies to my points that didn't reply to my point. You just spouted your talking points.
Why not try again and actually respond to what I said with your own thoughts if you have any.
Hint - nowhere did I say that people wouldn't watch if college football wasn't amateur
It will be minor league football when colleges drop
Fuck you're a moron dude..
You've been beat old man.
-
So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it -
Your whole premise is based on title 9.RaceBannon said:So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it
1. IS LICENSING BAD!? WHY CAN'T ALL THE PLAYERS IN EVERY SPORT LICENSE THEIR NAME? TITLE 9 WOULD NOT EFFECT THAT. YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE AN ANSWER. IT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE ONE.
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing. -
There ain't no getting around title 9 for university sports. These people have a say and they will say no...and then fuck no.RaceBannon said:So you think colleges will make football players employees, as the only way around Title 9 and take in the liability for their health the rest of their lives in a billion dollar CTE fund and all the other costs.
There's goes all that money.
They won't do it
These are the fucktards who are getting charged up to "do something" about the gender income gap myth. Title 9 in American universities won't be changing and male football players won't be getting paid if the softball players aren't getting the same amount. No matter where it comes from.
Simple fact. -
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.MikeDamone said:
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.Tailgater said:
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.RaceBannon said:Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
-
Title 9 is like Catch 22. It is whatever they want it to be
-
If the amount of revenue was a factor Title 9 wouldn't exist
-
Wrong... Congress or a judge could absolutely enforce title 9 or even if the football players get put on the payroll and the softball players don't. Allowing football players to be employees simply won't happen unless they allow women to play football and enforce their participation through quotas.Tailgater said:
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.MikeDamone said:
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.Tailgater said:
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.RaceBannon said:Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Players won't be put on payroll or be paid in our lifetime. They can choose the offer to play that is on the table, or they can chose not to play. There is no shortage of quality players who will play for the current form of compensation. It would have to be forced with through the courts (it won't be) or players will have to elect not to play (they won't) -
So Race, are you gonna answer whether players should be able to profit off their name, not the school?
-
collegedoog says
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this -
Let the players for all sports take whatever side jobs they want and sign/sell whatever merchandise they want.
Problem solved. -
You realize the NCAA at the moment is at even more risk than the NFL exactly because the athletes aren't employees and can't follow the workers comp formula.RaceBannon said:collegedoog says
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
Schools currently have a concussion and injury waiver that they, I imagine, would carry over as part of any employee agreement, especially if the players unionize. -
I'm not saying that softball playing athletes wouldn't be paid small wages to make their college life easier, they just wouldn't be paid nearly as much as football playing athletes. No court is going to rule that all sports offered by the university for public consumption are of equal value and thus the work required to produce such sports entertainment must be equal. By your logic, Title 9 mandates that UW's head softball coach must be paid the same as UW's head football coach, that a female TA in english 101 must be paid the same as a full professor in pre-med, etc. Once colleges and universities decide to pay athletes something other than scholarship and subsistence expenses, equality in collegiate athletics becomes a different game where Title 9 doesn't play.MikeDamone said:
Wrong... Congress or a judge could absolutely enforce title 9 or even if the football players get put on the payroll and the softball players don't. Allowing football players to be employees simply won't happen unless they allow women to play football and enforce their participation through quotas.Tailgater said:
Wrong. Title 9 applies specifically to the opportunity of receiving the benefits of playing collegiate sports as a scholarship-athlete. It has never applied to productivity in terms of value of athletic performance to the product services provided for the paying public by the university's athletic department...... simply because without payroll for participating athletes, there can be no productivity for comparison of softball to football. Aside from Title 9, equal pay for equal work statutes could only be applied where a comparison of productivity for softball versus football is available..... and that will never be possible until softball as a revenue producing sports-entertainment product is equal in value to the university as that of football.MikeDamone said:
Yes, a judge could mandate that. A softball player putting in the same hours as a football player would certainly be paid the same. The government and courts would have it no other way.Tailgater said:
Title 9 isn't universal in that equal opportunity to play and receive a full ride scholarship can't and won't be the same as equal pay for unequal play. Neither softball nor any women's sport can be considered a vocation when it costs more to play than the earnings generated from playing for the entertainment of paying spectators.RaceBannon said:Pay the players? Sure as long as Suzy the softball player gets paid the same. Title 9. Not so easy now. Its not like that money is going in someone's pocket. Its funding the program and all the other programs.
If anything, paying college athletes could eventually blow Title 9 out of the water with respect to any university's athletic department business contributions from football and men's basketball. No judge living on mars or even in the womb of Women's Liberation could mandate equal pay for unequal play when comparing softball to football. We may be fare in an American way, but we are not communists.
Irregardless, it's a mute point. Players won't be put on payroll or be paid in our lifetime. They can choose the offer to play that is on the table, or they can chose not to play. There is no shortage of quality players who will play for the current form of compensation. It would have to be forced with through the courts (it won't be) or players will have to elect not to play (they won't)
-
Not being employees is why the NCAA isn't at risk. Making them employees with a union would make them just like the NFLCollegeDoog said:
You realize the NCAA at the moment is at even more risk than the NFL exactly because the athletes aren't employees and can't follow the workers comp formula.RaceBannon said:collegedoog says
2. Unequal pay implications are up for debate. It might have to be decided in the courts. The extra costs associating with being considered an employee is silly. Regarding CTE and injury liability they could just do like the NFL does now and have an up front understanding of the risks of playing.
What the NFL does is negotiate a settlement worth billions that a judge threw out for not being enough. Colleges would have even more players to cover, along with insuring them at what cost, and paying disability on a much larger scale. The L&I alone would eat a huge chunk
Of course if you had ever had any employees you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this
Schools currently have a concussion and injury waiver that they, I imagine, would carry over as part of any employee agreement, especially if the players unionize.
This is really basic shit -
FinallyTierbsHsotBoobs said:Let the players for all sports take whatever side jobs they want and sign/sell whatever merchandise they want.
Problem solved.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
