2kool4skool;613216 wrote:Everyone knows about Title IX. Myself, along with other people that are likely ignoring your constant mentioning of it, are probably in favor of scrapping it. I'd be in favor of doing away with it even if it wasn't to allow athletes to be paid. It's an out-dated, counter-productive law.

haha good luck "scrapping" it. It's not really going to be that easy to get rid of. It's been upheld numerous amounts of time in court. Highly unlikely that a judge/jury wants to be a part of the group that eliminates any semblance of a level playing field for women. The rule is simply not going away.

The players aren't just the one's sweating it out, they're the ones with the unique skill-set that is the driving force behind all the money the NCAA makes. If talent-level of the players didn't matter, D3 ball could easily substitute for D1.

Generally pay is given out based upon the value, and scarcity, of the skill-set the employee brings to the job. So it's not a valid comparison to compare NCAA players to guys working a manufacturing line or whatever you're trying to do.

Ok... there are plenty of football players out there who are just dying to get their chance to play football at Ohio State. There are also plenty of guys out there who would be grateful for the free education. If a few guys want to make some sort of moral stand, that's fine. But you are not going to see any sort of nationwide strike from players around the country. Plenty of players are more than capable of stepping in for these guys with "unique" skill sets. I'm not sure where these guys with "unique" skill sets are going to take their talents, if they feel the current system is unfair.

Perhaps an enterprising league like the UFL could swoop in and allow guys fresh out of high school to play right away, but until then, college football is the best way to showcase your talents for the next level. And because of that, there are always going to be players willing to suit up.

lhslep134;613237 wrote:Damn, shot down Jordo. Great post.

In what way? In his first paragraph he talks about "scrapping" a law that is entrenched because he feels it is outdated haha. The main thing the law protects is an equal opportunity for women and it prevents ADs and presidents from eliminating female sports just because they do not pull their weight or attract interest. Not sure how that is "outdated"?

And in the last paragraph, well I've already addressed that in a previous post.

No one is debating that any of this WILL happen. I have zero doubt that Title IX will continue to exist, that the NCAA will continue to enjoy tax breaks as a non-profit organization despite being anything but, that they will continue to talk about a level playing field while promoting the BCS, that there will continue to be an environment that invites corruption, etc., etc.

I'm simply pointing out how absurd and contradictory the NCAA is on nearly every level. Thus far, the argument seems to be, "lol, well that will never happen." The fact that there's zero possibility for change in a system that's so clearly broken, speaks to my point more than anything IMO.

It would be like chiming in on a debate about the merits of universal-healthcare with "lol, well that'll never happen." That's not the point of the discussion. If you want to debate whether any change WILL occur, then there's no need, because I agree 100%.

jordo212000;613354 wrote:haha good luck "scrapping" it. It's not really going to be that easy to get rid of. It's been upheld numerous amounts of time in court. Highly unlikely that a judge/jury wants to be a part of the group that eliminates any semblance of a level playing field for women. The rule is simply not going away.



Ok... there are plenty of football players out there who are just dying to get their chance to play football at Ohio State. There are also plenty of guys out there who would be grateful for the free education. If a few guys want to make some sort of moral stand, that's fine. But you are not going to see any sort of nationwide strike from players around the country. Plenty of players are more than capable of stepping in for these guys with "unique" skill sets. I'm not sure where these guys with "unique" skill sets are going to take their talents, if they feel the current system is unfair.

Perhaps an enterprising league like the UFL could swoop in and allow guys fresh out of high school to play right away, but until then, college football is the best way to showcase your talents for the next level. And because of that, there are always going to be players willing to suit up.

If there were so many guys who could just "step in" at Ohio State then Ohio State wouldn't be one of the schools with the most players in the NFL.

2kool4skool;613380 wrote: Thus far, the argument seems to be, "lol, well that will never happen." The fact that there's zero possibility for change in a system that's so clearly broken, speaks to my point more than anything IMO.

I couldn't disagree more. Go back and look at post #293 of this thread. In this post I actually talk about why I feel the current system is more than fair. This is without me even bringing up Title IX and its' legal ramifications.

-Free education that nearly anybody with a brain would love to have and would take seriously.
-The experience to play in great stadiums and environments and the ability to showcase your skills for the next level
-Special housing that regular students at ohio state do not have access to.
-Stipends that give them cash
-free food (wish I had that while I was in college)
-any girl you want
...the list goes on and on.

What I want to know is, how come we do not hear sob stories from volleyball players or cross country runners? How come they aren't out in the forefront whining about what is handed to them?

Why is it that the guys who get busted for feeling that they are "entitled" to doing whatever they want, with no regard for the rules, happen to be star football players?

2kool, I agree that the system will not be changing any time soon/ever. However to say that my only point all along has been "LOL" is simply not true.

I too am interested in Webfire's question. How would you pay, if you advocate paying players? How do you determine the value of each player? Do all make equal money on a given team, or do you slot guys based on their perceived value? Who determines this? Do players get 4/5 year contracts, or year-to-year? What if a player is highly touted (think NFL top 10 pick) out of HS, but is a bust? Does the school get to recoup money/"fire" the player? Are the contracts guaranteed (NBA-type), or can the school break them (NFL)? Free agency? If a player is hurt, do they get an injury settlement/release? How do you determine what their earning power would have been if the do get hurt? If a player exceeds expectations, can they hold out for more money/renegotiate the contract?

Are the contracts contingent on how much money the school gets in the given year (BCS bowl, conference championship game, mid-tier bowl, no bowl, etc.), or do players agree to a set amount to start the year and that is that? Bonuses for reaching set yards/tds/sacks/etc.? Do you do this on a school by school basis, conference-wide, or across the whole of the Div. 1? If you do it by school, the rich will only get richer as far as talent is concerned (if you think Indiana/Minnesota are outmatched in the Big 10 now, wait till this happens). We all know that the power schools have an advantage with recruits/talent already, but if you factor in the ability to pay salaries based on how much the school makes on football, the big 10-15 programs will become insurmountably dominant. Never mind the non-BCS conferences who would become even weaker. The only (not forgetting differences in tradition, conference affiliation, academic rankings, etc.) "equalizer" across Div. 1 bowl subdivision teams is that they can offer (roughly) the same deal to recruits: free education, stipend, expense monies, free workout gear, etc. If schools that actually make significant money on football can use that money to entice recruits, then any semblance of equity would disappear.

BTW, I am not completely opposed to the idea of players getting more out of their efforts, but any scheme to pay players is fraught with multiple difficulties.

Sorry to string so many questions together, but I really am interested on how people think this could/might work, hypothetically of course

AcesinCalifornia;613428 wrote:I too am interested in Webfire's question. How would you pay, if you advocate paying players?

IMO, you would have to pay everybody the same amount and you would have to pay all scholarship athletes regardless of the sport the same amount (women would be required equal status, and if that is the case, then men's cross country, bowling, etc would be the only sports getting crapped on. That's not going to happen)

Because you can't just say, well football players get more because they bring more to the table. You also can't say, well men deserve more than women (Title IX) because that's who brings in the money.

You would have to pay TP the same amount as the worst volleyball player.

With that being said, I think something like less than 10 schools earn any sort of profit from sports. Meaning that hundreds of colleges are currently losing money for fielding teams. I've said it before... revenues do not equal profits. I'm not sure these schools can pull off paying 500-700 athletes a salary. IMO this would lead to cutting sports. Because you must keep women's participation roughly equal, you are going to see every single sport disappear except for M&W basketball, baseball/softball, and football/volleyball. Everything else gets axed.

Just my $0.02

What I would do

1.) Do away with Title IX. Make each individual sport fund its self. No more tax dollars used to support failing athletic teams. Can't manage to get money to fund the women's ping pong team? Tough, guess the university doesn't really need the team that badly then. If they did, someone would donate money, the team would hold fundraisers, people would pay for tickets, etc. Not all sports, just like not all jobs, are created equal. Quicker they learn that the better.

2.) Each player is given a cut of their individual jersey sales. If their cut does not exceed the amount they would have earned in scholarship money, then they are given the scholarship and nothing more.

Ideally, a system separating education from what is essentially a pro farm system would be great. Have a U-22 NFL league. Players are offered whatever salary the team's owner sees fit. Make NCAA sports truly non-profit, everyone who would rather get paid to play than get an education, go to the U-22 league.

In baseball and over seas, this is the standard. It works quite well, is fair to everyone involved, and would eliminate the ridiculous situation we have currently.

Unfortunately, the people that would get rich from such a league, aren't the same people who get rich from NCAA football. And I'm sure the NFL doesn't mind having a completely free farm system. So it won't be changing.

Tiernan;613028 wrote:Are you shitting me!?!? Hartline was twice the receiver at OSU than Posey ever hoped to be. Hartline caught the ball in traffic and over the middle. Posey so far has been strictly a sideline streaker...and we all know one pass he missed one gimme that almost cost the Iowa game. His name should be Devier Poseur.

The point
|
|
|
|
|
Your head.

2kool4skool;613479 wrote:What I would do

1.) Do away with Title IX. Make each individual sport fund its self. No more tax dollars used to support failing athletic teams. Can't manage to get money to fund the women's ping pong team? Tough, guess the university doesn't really need the team that badly then. If they did, someone would donate money, the team would hold fundraisers, people would pay for tickets, etc. Not all sports, just like not all jobs, are created equal. Quicker they learn that the better.

2.) Each player is given a cut of their individual jersey sales. If their cut does not exceed the amount they would have earned in scholarship money, then they are given the scholarship and nothing more.

Ideally, a system separating education from what is essentially a pro farm system would be great. Have a U-22 NFL league. Players are offered whatever salary the team's owner sees fit. Make NCAA sports truly non-profit, everyone who would rather get paid to play than get an education, go to the U-22 league.

In baseball and over seas, this is the standard. It works quite well, is fair to everyone involved, and would eliminate the ridiculous situation we have currently.

Unfortunately, the people that would get rich from such a league, aren't the same people who get rich from NCAA football. And I'm sure the NFL doesn't mind having a completely free farm system. So it won't be changing.

This is an awful idea/suggestion. Make each individual sport fund itself?! How in the hell is a men's basketball program at, say, Toledo going to be able to spend the money to compete against the likes of the Ohio State University (which isn't even a Duke or North Carolina?!) And that's not even getting into FOOTBALL where there's even bigger disparities (say, Temple versus the Ohio State University). Instead of having 119 collegiate football teams, you'd end up having something like 50, possibly even 20.

This is a horrendous idea.

Scarlet_Buckeye;613545 wrote:This is an awful idea/suggestion. Make each individual sport fund itself?! How in the hell is a men's basketball program at, say, Toledo going to be able to spend the money to compete against the likes of the Ohio State University (which isn't even a Duke or North Carolina?!) And that's not even getting into FOOTBALL where there's even bigger disparities (say, Temple versus the Ohio State University). Instead of having 119 collegiate football teams, you'd end up having something like 50, possibly even 20.

This is a horrendous idea.

There would be few college athletics out there for sure.

Scarlet_Buckeye;613545 wrote:This is an awful idea/suggestion. Make each individual sport fund itself?! How in the hell is a men's basketball program at, say, Toledo going to be able to spend the money to compete against the likes of the Ohio State University (which isn't even a Duke or North Carolina?!) And that's not even getting into FOOTBALL where there's even bigger disparities (say, Temple versus the Ohio State University). Instead of having 119 collegiate football teams, you'd end up having something like 50, possibly even 20.

This is a horrendous idea.

This.



The only way to pay players is how Jordo said, pay everyone. To do this though, I think you have to look at all of the revenue the NCAA could make through various TV deals and what not. There is a TON of money that's made, and I don't see it being too difficult to put a decent (nothing spectacular) amount in a general fund that is distributed equally.

Legends/Leaders

lhslep134;613554 wrote:This.



The only way to pay players is how Jordo said, pay everyone. To do this though, I think you have to look at all of the revenue the NCAA could make through various TV deals and what not. There is a TON of money that's made, and I don't see it being too difficult to put a decent (nothing spectacular) amount in a general fund that is distributed equally.

I believe that no matter how you structure it or how much you pay, it will not be enough for some people and they will continue to have their hand out.

What would be wrong with only 50 D1 football teams? Hell, pick em out of a hat and everybody else into the amateur division.

What about just passing the hat up and down the stadium rows at half time and then both teams split the pot after the game?

Makes a lot more sense than some of this other idiotic bull shit I'm reading.

If it's your shit,you should be able to sell it. All of us had the same options when we were in college.

Bigdogg;613742 wrote:If it's your shit,you should be able to sell it. All of us had the same options when we were in college.

The only way that works is if the NCAA sets a value on every item that the players recieve, and give the players an option to either keep the items or sell them back to the NCAA - kinda like selling books back to the book store or whatever. Otherwise, some booster is going to buy a kids ring for $50,000 and everyone knows it.

Scarlet_Buckeye;613545 wrote:Make each individual sport fund itself?!

Right, what an awful idea. Not using tax dollars to support failing athletic dept's. Crazy, I know.

Instead of having 119 collegiate football teams, you'd end up having something like 50.

By getting rid of the waste that currently goes on(cutting coaches, athletic directors, etc. salaries) you would be able to keep more alive than that. Private donations would also keep some alive that otherwise would fold.

But even if there were 50 D-1 teams, who cares? Clearly the 50 that remain would be the ones people care about.

If your program is such a financial disaster that you need government assistance to keep it alive, then you don't really have the fan base you thought you did.

pinstriper;613821 wrote:Otherwise, some booster is going to buy a kids ring for $50,000 and everyone knows it.

Who cares if this happens? Who is harmed?

Because it would be unfair towards smaller schools that don't have wealthy boosters? The NCAA's passionate backing of the BCS has already made the divide between the have's and have-not's very clear. Unless you buy the "it's better for academics" excuse, then it's pretty apparent the NCAA doesn't care about a level-playing field.

johngrizzly;613560 wrote:Legends/Leaders

this

Even if you pay the players, the rules will be broken. Everyone is looking to gain an advantage. If you pay a player $50,000/season, boosters will find a a way to get them $100,00/season to play for them.

Paying is not the answer, IMO.

now that I thought about this, I guess I've gotta take a step back and re-evaluate some things here.

I guess that if I was in these kids situation, I could have assumed exactly the same thing, that these items that were given to me are now mine and I'm free to do with them what I please.

That doesn't excuse their lack of education about the rules, considering the caliber of ball they're playing and the microscope they're under, and it doesn't excuse them from stepping all over tradition.

but the section of the rule book that was listed in the NCAA release is fairly vague when you read it... just sayin'

The whole book is vague. Every coach has to take a test to recruit and when you look through this book to find the answers it is just awful. Not only is it vague, but it jumps around alot as well

captvern;614348 wrote:The whole book is vague. Every coach has to take a test to recruit and when you look through this book to find the answers it is just awful. Not only is it vague, but it jumps around alot as well

yeah you're right. I'm familiar with both the book and th test... the DIII book some say is even worse because of the lack of scholarship money and the fact that every dollar must be accounted for

when USC and reggie bush were in hot water and cam newton was being investigated the programs and players needed severe punishment by the ncaa. but when buckeyes get caught with there hands in cookie jar , the system is in need of repair and players should be paid.

http://www.lostlettermen.com/jim-weber-column-this-would-be-fitting-end-to-terrelle-pryor%E2%80%99s-osu-career/