Fly4Fun;1377126 wrote:What's to stop them? The desire to win. Their teammates. Societal norms. There are many things. But the real point is there is NOTHING motivating them to throw a game as it currently stands. But if a booster starts paying a kid to throw games, the motivation is now there.

A booster can do that now. Nice fail. LOL

Pick6;1377127 wrote:Is the fact that sports betting is legal in England enough motivation for soccer clubs to throw matches? No.

I never said sports betting was a problem. I'm saying that boosters being allowed to give money to players would potentially lead to more situations like that.

sleeper;1377140 wrote:A booster can do that now. Nice fail. LOL

A booster CAN do it, but the NCAA/school would theoretically investigate it and punish accordingly. But if boosters were just allowed to give money without the fear of investigation, it would then be required for the NCAA/School to have to prove that the money was given for compensation for the alleged activity which would be harder to prove. Right now for a violation all that needs to be shown is that money was given. Because the NCAA has limited resources and powers, investigating the former is a lot tougher than the latter.

Fly4Fun;1377185 wrote:I never said sports betting was a problem. I'm saying that boosters being allowed to give money to players would potentially lead to more situations like that.



A booster CAN do it, but the NCAA/school would theoretically investigate it and punish accordingly. But if boosters were just allowed to give money without the fear of investigation, it would then be required for the NCAA/School to have to prove that the money was given for compensation for the alleged activity which would be harder to prove. Right now for a violation all that needs to be shown is that money was given. Because the NCAA has limited resources and powers, investigating the former is a lot tougher than the latter.

Now you're being naive.

Ya do see some point shaving scandels every once in awhile in college. Thing is....that stuff is looked at very closely by the NCAA about how much $$ is being bet.

thavoice;1377500 wrote:Ya do see some point shaving scandels every once in awhile in college. Thing is....that stuff is looked at very closely by the NCAA about how much $$ is being bet.

I always wonder why the NCAA gets so upset about point shaving. They are supposed to be anti-gambling so why do they care if the gamblers are getting cheated?

FatHobbit;1377516 wrote:I always wonder why the NCAA gets so upset about point shaving. They are supposed to be anti-gambling so why do they care if the gamblers are getting cheated?

Because that is gambling. Duh.
How are gamblers gettings screwed? Well maybe the ones NOT in on it.
Newarkcatholicf bribes suzi ann of NC's 7th grade team. Spread is 15, so he pays her to make sure they dont get within that. Miss shots, turnover, stupid schit like that.

Its gambling dude

thavoice;1377521 wrote:Because that is gambling. Duh.
How are gamblers gettings screwed? Well maybe the ones NOT in on it.
Newarkcatholicf bribes suzi ann of NC's 7th grade team. Spread is 15, so he pays her to make sure they dont get within that. Miss shots, turnover, stupid schit like that.

Its gambling dude

The gamblers who aren't in on it get screwed. Why does the NCAA care? If the 7th grade team wins by 14 it's still a win.

FatHobbit;1377524 wrote:The gamblers who aren't in on it get screwed. Why does the NCAA care? If the 7th grade team wins by 14 it's still a win.

Because it has an impact on the competitive nature of the game. It's a slippery slope as well. For example, originally a player agrees that shaving a few points in a win is acceptable. If the price increases and with the passage of time, the player eventually agrees to throw a game that should have been a close win then you have a different outcome beyond just a point or two in the winning box score.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

This article is not related to seat pricing at OSU, but is related to my earlier point of the hypocracy of schools like OSU that make millions from football and basketball - without passing it along to the actual performers.

Fly4Fun;1377185 wrote:I never said sports betting was a problem. I'm saying that boosters being allowed to give money to players would potentially lead to more situations like that.

I would argue that it is more encouraged now because players aren't getting paid so the thought of getting a few thousand bucks in exchange for shaving a few points is more appealing than if they're already getting thousands. I don't remember a points shaving scandal at the pro level because they're already making a ton of money and to not perform well to shave points could cost them on their contract. In the end, I think it makes college sports less susceptible to points shaving.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1377570 wrote:http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

This article is not related to seat pricing at OSU, but is related to my earlier point of the hypocracy of schools like OSU that make millions from football and basketball - without passing it along to the actual performers.

Would you prefer it goes to the "actual performers", or is it better that the overwhelming bulk of it goes to performers in other sports that don't draw the crowds to be self-sustaining? For me, it's the latter.

queencitybuckeye;1377579 wrote:Would you prefer it goes to the "actual performers", or is it better that the overwhelming bulk of it goes to performers in other sports that don't draw the crowds to be self-sustaining? For me, it's the latter.

Why should it go to sports that nobody cares about?

FatHobbit;1377604 wrote:Why should it go to sports that nobody cares about?

Because in spite of the constant references to the business model, and all the money involved, the program is supposed to be something bigger than just a business. The importance of the sports that don't make money ("nobody cares" is more than a small exaggeration in many cases) aren't measured by dollars alone.

FatHobbit;1377604 wrote:Why should it go to sports that nobody cares about?

Why do universities offer subjects other than hard sciences and math? There is more to life than making $$. Most universities want to provide opportunities to their students to explore and grow as a person and choose a field that is relevant to them personally.

Generally the only people "getting rich" off the students are a few administrators (such as the Athletic Director) and the coaches. But even then, some of the time it is a worthwhile investment for the school as it does help provide opportunities for fellow students.

It's the same with high school football as well in some instances. If you force the colleges to start paying football players, what about the big time high schools with sell out crowds charging for attendance to those games. Those kids are the reason people are there. Without a good on the field product, the crowds will most likely diminish.

Moreover, if colleges are forced to start paying players, lots of other sports likely get cut at most universities (besides the fortunate few) as the funds won't be there anymore. Beyond the Title 9 implications this all rolls down hill to high school levels. More kids would want to play just a few sports (Basketball and football) as the opportunities for others will be greatly diminished.

What happens to all the Olympics sports?

There would be a huge chain reaction that would happen and it would be difficult to predict how it all would shake out. But I'm guessing more often then not, a lot of student athletes would be losing opportunities. And most colleges and universities see it as part of their job to provide those opportunities. If they truly were the money greedy institutions that some like to view them as, they would have cut most male sports anyways (and just enough female sports to keep it balanced for title 9).

queencitybuckeye;1377621 wrote:Because in spite of the constant references to the business model, and all the money involved, the program is supposed to be something bigger than just a business.

I'm with you until they start charging $175 for a ticket.

queencitybuckeye;1377579 wrote:Would you prefer it goes to the "actual performers", or is it better that the overwhelming bulk of it goes to performers in other sports that don't draw the crowds to be self-sustaining? For me, it's the latter.

I think it should go to the actual performers. The rest of the sports should find other funding or should be abandoned. OSU always brags about haveing 30+ sports. I suggest that no one cares about those except the players and their parents. That's fine if people want to participate in sports like field hockey or wrestling. But treat those the same as club sports or sports at the DIII level where they are provided basic funding from the institution. That would probably shrink the roster at a place like OSU. So be it.

FYI, I am not necessarily arguing that they should pay football players, but I do see why my response seemed to be defending that stance. My issue is with gouging (IMHO) fans to see how much money they can squeeze out of us.

Fly4Fun;1377663 wrote:Why do universities offer subjects other than hard sciences and math?

There is definite value for an individual in having a well rounded education. That's what the students are paying the University for. I don't think it's quite the same as having a well rounded athletic department.

Fly4Fun;1377663 wrote:Why do universities offer subjects other than hard sciences and math? There is more to life than making $$. Most universities want to provide opportunities to their students to explore and grow as a person and choose a field that is relevant to them personally.

Generally the only people "getting rich" off the students are a few administrators (such as the Athletic Director) and the coaches. But even then, some of the time it is a worthwhile investment for the school as it does help provide opportunities for fellow students.

It's the same with high school football as well in some instances. If you force the colleges to start paying football players, what about the big time high schools with sell out crowds charging for attendance to those games. Those kids are the reason people are there. Without a good on the field product, the crowds will most likely diminish.

Moreover, if colleges are forced to start paying players, lots of other sports likely get cut at most universities (besides the fortunate few) as the funds won't be there anymore. Beyond the Title 9 implications this all rolls down hill to high school levels. More kids would want to play just a few sports (Basketball and football) as the opportunities for others will be greatly diminished.

What happens to all the Olympics sports?

There would be a huge chain reaction that would happen and it would be difficult to predict how it all would shake out. But I'm guessing more often then not, a lot of student athletes would be losing opportunities. And most colleges and universities see it as part of their job to provide those opportunities. If they truly were the money greedy institutions that some like to view them as, they would have cut most male sports anyways (and just enough female sports to keep it balanced for title 9).

I don't agree with your premise. I think it's fine if schools want to offer sports and other extra curricular activities. They should follow the DIII model and provide the basic funding for this. As far as basketball and football go, I don't just blame the colleges. I blame the NFL, the NBA, and the courts that have sanctioned these free minor leagues. I think it is totally unAmerican to tell someone less than three years out of high school that it is illegal for him to enter the NFL draft even though he believes himself physically ready.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1377703 wrote:I don't agree with your premise. I think it's fine if schools want to offer sports and other extra curricular activities. They should follow the DIII model and provide the basic funding for this. As far as basketball and football go, I don't just blame the colleges. I blame the NFL, the NBA, and the courts that have sanctioned these free minor leagues. I think it is totally unAmerican to tell someone less than three years out of high school that it is illegal for him to enter the NFL draft even though he believes himself physically ready.

For most sports it is basic funding. Only at a few big schools do the other sports get some kind of grand treatment. Hell, I knew a swimmer that was a State Champion in Ohio, eventually an NCAA Champion. He got looks from all the top colleges, but scholarship offers are pretty much non-existent. I think all he ended up getting was books.

Generally women's sports get better treatment than men's nonrevenue generating. They get more "gear" from the school beyond scholarship opportunities and such.

It's not like most college have extravagant facilities for non-revenue sports. And the ones that do either have a great all around athletic department because either it's a big school and/or it has a great football/basketball revenue. Or sometimes you'll have a school with great facilities in a non-revenue sport because it has been a national title contender in that sport historically and currently (like Arkansas track and field).

Generally the football and basketball programs do get the preferential treatment (Deservedly so). They get the best times in the weight room (as in most convenient). Often they have separate facilities including locker rooms. Their practice facilities tend to be nicer.

I don't really think non-revenue generating sports on the male side are really living it up.

Are you going to start requiring High schools with high ticket sales for football to start paying the athletes?

As far as the "requirement" of 1 or 3 years out of high school to play. I do agree that it is weird to have it formulated in that way. But it's not too different from requiring a certain degree in order to do a job. Part of the job of being a professional athlete is getting big enough and strong enough, learning the maturity needed to discipline yourself, and learning some skills such as living on your own to succeed.

Yes, there are some people who could probably make the jump right away and do fine. But look at even college kids who get to college ball and can't handle the attention, pressure, and responsibilities (Honey Badger). And the college life style is a lot safer environment than the pros as far as people looking out for you and keeping tabs on you.

But then again, there are some people who never learn the lessons they need to in college (Jamarcus Russell).

I don't think college ball is purely a meat factory to get guys physically ready, but it is also partially a mental preparation for it. And with that view I don't think it is terrible. Most high paying jobs in America require some kind of "mental preparation."

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1377692 wrote:I think it should go to the actual performers. The rest of the sports should find other funding or should be abandoned. OSU always brags about haveing 30+ sports. I suggest that no one cares about those except the players and their parents. That's fine if people want to participate in sports like field hockey or wrestling. But treat those the same as club sports or sports at the DIII level where they are provided basic funding from the institution. That would probably shrink the roster at a place like OSU. So be it.

I think the actual performers should stop whining and play the game. They aren't being forced to receive a free ride at a top tier university, a monthly stipend that far exceeds that COL for a luxury lifestyle, etc. If they don't want it, there are millions who would die for an opportunity to have half of what they have, including myself. Now, I got a full ride to school, but man that monthly stipend was far more than I could earn working 40 hours a week at a coffee shop. Not to mention they get every girl they want even if they are made up, plus free OSU athletic gear, personal trainers, free food, etc. Stop whining and play the game!

Also with paying the "actual performers" there is the issue of employment contracts and deciding compensation. Evaluating talent is already a risky enough business when it is a binary decision (occasionally tertiary). You either give a scholarship or not (occasionally partial). Now imagine complicating that decision by including negotiation for contracts. Or assuming there is no negotiation but just some standard rates, the decision still has to be made on what "rate" range you put that player in. Also consideration of the length of the contract ( 4 year, 1 year renewable, etc.) will have to be decided upon. There will be increased transaction costs in the form of lawyers and/or agents to "help facilitate" these situations. So some $$ that could have gone to giving another student at the school the chance to participate in a sport instead gets sucked up in necessary transaction costs in a payment type scheme.

Beyond that, how does the "professionalization" of college athletics affect the fan base? It's quite possible that fans lose interest in an actual minor league for football and basketball. How many TV contracts does minor league baseball receive? Part of the charm of college sports is that it's about representing the universities, playing for school pride, etc. Paying the players would truly turn it into a minor league and that could have profound impacts on the attention the sport receives from fans.

The "simple" solution of just paying players isn't really quite so simple.

sleeper;1377756 wrote:I think the actual performers should stop whining and play the game. They aren't being forced to receive a free ride at a top tier university, a monthly stipend that far exceeds that COL for a luxury lifestyle, etc. If they don't want it, there are millions who would die for an opportunity to have half of what they have, including myself. Now, I got a full ride to school, but man that monthly stipend was far more than I could earn working 40 hours a week at a coffee shop. Not to mention they get every girl they want even if they are made up, plus free OSU athletic gear, personal trainers, free food, etc. Stop whining and play the game!

What they get has nothing to do with the wealth they generate. A scholarship is worth a lot on for some. But for a kid who is a star player for a big time school, it is far, far below the money his play helps generate. Sure there are others that would like to take their place, but most of those people cannot perform as well, so the perks of being in the position would be something less.

Fly4Fun;1377780 wrote:Also with paying the "actual performers" there is the issue of employment contracts and deciding compensation. Evaluating talent is already a risky enough business when it is a binary decision (occasionally tertiary). You either give a scholarship or not (occasionally partial). Now imagine complicating that decision by including negotiation for contracts. Or assuming there is no negotiation but just some standard rates, the decision still has to be made on what "rate" range you put that player in. Also consideration of the length of the contract ( 4 year, 1 year renewable, etc.) will have to be decided upon. There will be increased transaction costs in the form of lawyers and/or agents to "help facilitate" these situations. So some $$ that could have gone to giving another student at the school the chance to participate in a sport instead gets sucked up in necessary transaction costs in a payment type scheme.

Beyond that, how does the "professionalization" of college athletics affect the fan base? It's quite possible that fans lose interest in an actual minor league for football and basketball. How many TV contracts does minor league baseball receive? Part of the charm of college sports is that it's about representing the universities, playing for school pride, etc. Paying the players would truly turn it into a minor league and that could have profound impacts on the attention the sport receives from fans.

The "simple" solution of just paying players isn't really quite so simple.

I don't think it is simple. However thousands of other fields of endeavor have figured out a way to evaluate and compensate talent. I've no doubt college football and men's basketball could do the same.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1377850 wrote:What they get has nothing to do with the wealth they generate. A scholarship is worth a lot on for some. But for a kid who is a star player for a big time school, it is far, far below the money his play helps generate. Sure there are others that would like to take their place, but most of those people cannot perform as well, so the perks of being in the position would be something less.

I'd still watch Ohio State if all of their players were 1 stars because they didn't want to pay their athletes. These D1 athletes are whining bitches if they think they deserve anything more than what they currently get.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1377852 wrote:I don't think it is simple. However thousands of other fields of endeavor have figured out a way to evaluate and compensate talent. I've no doubt college football and men's basketball could do the same.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying there is a transaction cost involved more so than just the standard scholarship because of the increasing complexity. Those fees are essentially taking $$ that would otherwise help other student athletes and going to lawyers/agents instead.