queencitybuckeye;945067 wrote:The party keeping the best players from earning "market" value is not the NCAA, it's the NFLPA.

Those picayune bastards!!1!11!!!!one Damn them and their principles which allow misdeeds to be considered.

queencitybuckeye;945067 wrote:The party keeping the best players from earning "market" value is not the NCAA, it's the NFLPA.

The NFLPA can not stop an individual from starting another pro league. If anyone wants to get a group of investors together and start a pro league, he or she do that. There is just isn't a demand for any more pro football leagues.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7148175/ncaa-student-athletes-ask-cut-television-revenue-cover-school-costs


...and the 'workers' are getting restless.

No one should be stunned, but I'm sure there will be some who will be outraged that kids getting a free education want more for there role in generating piles of money for their schools. This is not college athletics of 50 years ago....not even 20. So even as rules for compensation and how an athlete can earn money 'properly' have ballooned and become more restrictive, and penalties greater, hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing into everyone's pockets except the athletes'. Some not so stupid college athletes have noticed and want more.(why those ungrateful little twerps, how dare they!)

This is a seperate issue from the NCAA's consideration of raising the stipend of athete's $2K. For those wanting to know where they got the $2000 figure...it comes from an Ithaca College report in 2010 that showed that on average, a college athlete spent more than $2000 for necessities above and beyond their grant -in aid stipends and per diem money.http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5728653

I know I've been harping on this issue for quite some time and have had very few people back me,... and have irritated more than a few of you. For that I'm sorry, but this is an issue that has been building for some time and one that's not going away....just trying to open some eyes. D1 College athletics is not amateur athletics anymore...and hasn't been for a long time.

Let them be restless, do many of these scholars realize that most programs LOSE money.

If you're going to pay the 3rd string QB at one of the programs that are in the black, you're going to have to pay the tennis team. These kids aren't hurting...at all. They get everything paid for and they get cushy summer jobs, something that the average student doesn't get in this Obamaconomy.

They get everything paid for and they get cushy summer jobs, something that the average student doesn't get in this Obamaconomy

For one, these are not average students. #2) college football players do not receive a stipend when school is not in session even when they are there for summer workouts., the schedule of which, makes it difficult to hold a traditional summer job. #3) they are NOT getting everything paid for according to the study....your hearsay notwithstanding.

The study was performed by "surprise" an advocacy group. And football players get summer jobs. It isn't hearsay its GD truth. For the love of crap 4 football players attended my wedding and I was groomsman in one of theirs. They are friends of mine. When I tell you they got summer jobs, it is honest. Even for the guys that were at the end of the bench

Unless the NCAA landscape has changed drastically since the mid-90's, if a football schollie can't turn into a beneficial situation for the player, they are the loser, not the program. And chump change of $2,000 will just go to more tats and rims, not make them not be a loser.

If they are taking summer classes, they get their stipend. If they take summer classes, they get paid to go to class and work out.

Won't matter. These athletes will blow through that money, and still be going things they shouldn't. That'll never change. They'll always just want more!

The study was performed by "surprise" an advocacy group

from the link:

The scholarship study by Huma's group and Ithaca College's Graduate Program in
Sport Management is based on data submitted by individual schools to the U.S.
Department of Education

So I'm sure the figures must be fudged.
:rolleyes:

Unless the NCAA landscape has changed drastically since the mid-90's

I think that's the point.

Let the free market rule when it comes to paying college athletes what they are worth. Each team should have a "salary cap" of sorts though.

Midstate01;945354 wrote:Won't matter. These athletes will blow through that money, and still be going things they shouldn't. That'll never change. They'll always just want more!

What they do with their money is their own damn business. They should be paid what they're worth...not this socialized system that the NCAA monopoly enforces.

queencitybuckeye;944963 wrote:The ONLY way worth is measured in the labor market is what someone is willing to pay. If a D-1 athlete believes a "free" education is not adequate to what he is providing a university, he is free to go to work in any capacity at any company willing to hire him at whatever wage he can negotiate.

Another post from you that makes absolutely no sense...no sense whatsoever. In a free market, you do not have a gestapo run monopoly (NCAA) making the rules. In case you missed it, we live in America...where people are paid what they're worth...or at least they should be. The NCAA says no. What, are you a closeted Marxist after all?

Conversely, other athletes should not be guaranteed a full ride...i.e...the third stringers. If things change after a year, then compensation should be changed as well.

As to the poster that cited "we'll have to pay the tennis players too". Um... No you won't. You pay them what the free market bears as well.

sleeper;944821 wrote:Ok, so you'd advise getting rid of all sports/programs that don't generate any revenue for the University?

Also, regardless of their true market value for services rendered, there's a ton of demand for the current package being offered by the schools. If a super star athlete feels they are not getting their true worth out of playing football for the school, then they wouldn't play, leaving another student to take their place. This is how economics works, try taking a class called Econ 101.

Econ 101 clearly states that you pay what the market will bear. Don't they teach Adam Smith principles in college these days? If you knocked down a 4.0 in your studies, I don't think you'd like it if your classmate blew a 2.1....and received a starting salary the same as yours.

LMAO on all the regular hard core right wingers going all communist regarding this topic.

Footwedge;945411 wrote:Another post from you that makes absolutely no sense...no sense whatsoever. In a free market, you do not have a gestapo run monopoly (NCAA) making the rules. In case you missed it, we live in America...where people are paid what they're worth...or at least they should be. The NCAA says no. What, are you a closeted Marxist after all?

Conversely, other athletes should not be guaranteed a full tide...i.e...the third stringers. If things change after a year, then compensation should be changed as well.

As to the poster that cited "we'll have to pay the tennis players too". Um... No you won't. You pay them what the free market bears as well.

There is a already a free market, no one is stopping these 18-22 year olds from starting their own league. They can't do it because no one will pay for it. People root for the jersey, not the name.

Footwedge;945422 wrote:Econ 101 clearly states that you pay what the market will bear. Don't they teach Adam Smith principles in college these days? If you knocked down a 4.0 in your studies, I don't think you'd like it if your classmate blew a 2.1....and received a starting salary the same as yours.

LMAO on all the regular hard core right wingers going all communist regarding this topic.

This is a free market. The instituions offer what they feel the athletes are worth, and the athletes choose to work for the University. QQ all you want, that's the way it is.

sleeper;945435 wrote:This is a free market. The instituions offer what they feel the athletes are worth, and the athletes choose to work for the University. QQ all you want, that's the way it is.

No. The institutions offer the players what the NCAA allows them to offer. Not a penny more....nor a penny less for that matter.

Manhattan Buckeye;945429 wrote:There is a already a free market, no one is stopping these 18-22 year olds from starting their own league. They can't do it because no one will pay for it. People root for the jersey, not the name.

It is not a free market...if it were free....then it would not be governed by a monopoly who sets pricing. It is in fact "price fixing" which is as un American as it gets.....and probably violates anti trust laws as well.

In due time, the courts will find the NCAA in violation....just as they did with Curt Flood, 35 years ago.

Manhattan Buckeye;945324 wrote:If you're going to pay the 3rd string QB at one of the programs that are in the black, you're going to have to pay the tennis team.

Why? Would that fall under Title IX? Otherwise, couldn't the NCAA make an exception that said players got a cut of whatever profit their individual athletic program earned?

There's little doubt an extra 2k won't fix things. What confuses me, is why you people care so much about college athletes getting more money in their stipend?

2kool4skool;945465 wrote:Why? Would that fall under Title IX? Otherwise, couldn't the NCAA make an exception that said players got a cut of whatever profit their individual athletic program earned?

There's little doubt an extra 2k won't fix things. What confuses me, is why you people care so much about college athletes getting more money in their stipend?

Because they already live like kings, for every Ohio St. football program that is in the black, another program is in the red. Most programs, particularly women's programs, lose money.

I care because they don't need any more funding, all it will lead to is more problems. The idea that these poor athletes are paying for their grandmother's hospital bill is ridiculous. To the extent that the NCAA ever allows payments, it should be set aside in a fund for players AFTER THEY GRADUATE.

I don't want my kids going to a college that pays athletes.

Manhattan Buckeye;945488 wrote:Because they already live like kings, for every Ohio St. football program that is in the black, another program is in the red. Most programs, particularly women's programs, lose money.

I'd be completely in favor of scrapping any team that loses money. Doesn't make much sense that football/basketball programs have to support a bunch of teams no one cares about. Part of that "free market" thing that's so popular in this thread. If people want an OSU Field Hockey team, they'll come out and support it.

To the extent that the NCAA ever allows payments, it should be set aside in a fund for players AFTER THEY GRADUATE.

Why? Who cares? Pay them the entire athletic dept. surplus for all I care. Doesn't affect me in the least.

I don't want my kids going to a college that pays athletes.

They already do. 100's of scholarships given to kids that have absolutely nothing to do with them actually being a student and everything to do with them being an athlete. Why be alright with halfway making a joke of the term "student-athlete" but not going all the way with it?

2kool4skool;945499 wrote:I'd be completely in favor of scrapping any team that loses money. Doesn't make much sense that football/basketball programs have to support a bunch of teams no one cares about.

I am pretty sure I read that there are only maybe 5 football programs in the country that make a profit from their football team. OSU and Texas being two that I recall.

Footwedge;945454 wrote:No. The institutions offer the players what the NCAA allows them to offer. Not a penny more....nor a penny less for that matter.

Semantics. If the players don't like it, they don't have to play for the NCAA. They can get drafted in the UFL/Canadian league right from high school.

"I'd be completely in favor of scrapping any team that loses money."

That's practically every team, and all women's teams with the possible exception of UConn/Tennessee basketball. Even baseball loses money at the top programs. You're in favor of losing all sports?

Pick6;945504 wrote:I am pretty sure I read that there are only maybe 5 football programs in the country that make a profit from their football team. OSU and Texas being two that I recall.

here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

Reread the article....the figures are for the entire athletic programs. There were 14 schools that turned a profit on athletics. That includes all sports.