|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Sept 28, 2017 20:15:43 GMT -8
....this might be the ONLY way to ensure compliance. I can think of awholehelluvalotta slippery slope arguments against it. Bilas take. Bilas: Paying college athletes is the only way to fix anything es.pn/2xGqyhMvia @espn App es.pn/app |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 28, 2017 20:34:07 GMT -8
And how is that going to work? Will there be a collection bargaining agreement? A player's union? Salary cap? A draft? How can you have standards for academic eligibility for players that are being paid as market-rate professionals?
This is simply abandoning all pretense that college athletics has anything do with college. This would simply create a new pro league, with franchises located in various college towns. It would fail, of course, because there would be no market for college-quality sports without the college connection. None of us would buy tickets to a pro team with Drew and Stevie and Tres just because they played games in Gill Coliseum. We pay to watch these kids because they are attached to OUR school.
And it wouldn't even solve the main problem that this investigation has revealed. Assistant coaches would still be taking kickbacks to steer kids to certain financial managers. Paying the kids money would just make that worse.
The cure would be far worse that the disease. And the "prohibition" comparison is ridiculous. A better analogy would be comparing college amateurism with the drinking age. Do *some* kids under 21 drink? Yep. Does that mean that prohibiting sales to minors is a bad idea? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 28, 2017 20:42:59 GMT -8
The fallacy is that these kids aren't paid. We've got a couple Oregon kids and they're getting 25K a year in free books, tuition and what not. The out of staters are getting closer to 45K a year in help. How many male OSU students would consider giving up their right nut (ok, let's say get a vasectomy) for that in exchange for being BMOC, playing a game for 4-5 years, free travel and getting special treatment? Heck, a fair number of these kids couldn't get into OSU if they weren't more athletic than the next guy. I wouldn't be surprised if 85 take up that deal. In tuiton and board and other directly college related stuff alone, a college is paying out the equivalent of millions each year, and that's just football. These kids are already getting paid, and that's at universities that are following the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 28, 2017 20:43:51 GMT -8
And how is that going to work? Will there be a collection bargaining agreement? A player's union? Salary cap? A draft? How can you have standards for academic eligibility for players that are being paid as market-rate professionals? This is simply abandoning all pretense that college athletics has anything do with college. This would simply create a new pro league, with franchises located in various college towns. It would fail, of course, because there would be no market for college-quality sports without the college connection. None of us would buy tickets to a pro team with Drew and Stevie and Tres just because they played games in Gill Coliseum. We pay to watch these kids because they are attached to OUR school. And it wouldn't even solve the main problem that this investigation has revealed. Assistant coaches would still be taking kickbacks to steer kids to certain financial managers. Paying the kids money would just make that worse. The cure would be far worse that the disease. And the "prohibition" comparison is ridiculous. A better analogy would be comparing college amateurism with the drinking age. Do *some* kids under 21 drink? Yep. Does that mean that prohibiting sales to minors is a bad idea? No. Agree with a lot of this, kid. I always thought college athletics were synergistic...no way does the AAA Ann Arbor Wolverines draw 100,000+ for football games without the connection to UM; no way can UM draw a 100,000+ attendees for 6-8 events outside of athletics. Same with OSU: No way do the A/AA Corvallis Beavers draw 35-40k without connection to Oregon State and no way does OSU draw 35-40k for 6-8 events without athletes.
I would add that college athletes are paid; ask anyone graduating from OSU with $100,000 (or more) in debt. If the NCAA insists that college athletes should be able to earn money, then let them get jobs--any jobs--outside of the athletic season in which they participate.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeaverG20 on Sept 29, 2017 5:01:16 GMT -8
I can't wait for athletes to get paid, then they'll have to pay taxes. Then you'll have some 5th year senior who is ineligible because he hasn't paid his back taxes for 3 years. If you thought the IRS targeting the Tea Party was bad, wait till Buckeye staffers start targeting UofM players.......  |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Sept 29, 2017 6:48:24 GMT -8
There is so much money being made by people other than the players, that I'm not against players being paid. And, yes, I understand the argument that they are already being paid because of their scholarship, etc. But I'm not sure paying the players is going to get rid of all that much. How much are you going to pay them? What amount of "salary" is going to stop a 5* player who is inclined to take money under the table to enroll at a school under the current system to not take it if he is paid a salary? Cheaters are gonna cheat and liars are going to lie. You have to make the punishment enough to make them think not just twice but four or five times, and you need institutions to say "no, that's not how were are going to do things here whether it means fewer wins or not. And we as an institution are going to police ourselves and when cheating is found people are going to be fired." Will that happen? I hope so, but I highly doubt it.
So while I keep hearing from people like Bilas that players should be paid, I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive proposal on how that would work. And if you start paying the athletes enough to really curtail cheating you run the risk of basically turning the Power 5 conferences plus a few other schools into a pro league. I wonder if that would lessen some/much of the appeal of college sports. I think it might for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 29, 2017 8:49:17 GMT -8
There is so much money being made by people other than the players, that I'm not against players being paid. And, yes, I understand the argument that they are already being paid because of their scholarship, etc. But I'm not sure paying the players is going to get rid of all that much. How much are you going to pay them? What amount of "salary" is going to stop a 5* player who is inclined to take money under the table to enroll at a school under the current system to not take it if he is paid a salary? Cheaters are gonna cheat and liars are going to lie. You have to make the punishment enough to make them think not just twice but four or five times, and you need institutions to say "no, that's not how were are going to do things here whether it means fewer wins or not. And we as an institution are going to police ourselves and when cheating is found people are going to be fired." Will that happen? I hope so, but I highly doubt it. So while I keep hearing from people like Bilas that players should be paid, I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive proposal on how that would work. And if you start paying the athletes enough to really curtail cheating you run the risk of basically turning the Power 5 conferences plus a few other schools into a pro league. I wonder if that would lessen some/much of the appeal of college sports. I think it might for me. I honestly think that would be the end of college sports. But as I recall the players won a lawsuit allowing them to be paid more than just tuition, etc. Eventually it will just be schools like Texas and USC with oversized alumni donations that get the best players. Unfortunately I think the genie is already out of the bottle and I'm not sure how they're going to put it back. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 29, 2017 9:41:17 GMT -8
Just paid my son's fall tuition. He worked two jobs all summer to pay for his off-campus room and board. Please don't tell me some kid on a full ride is being exploited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 9:54:43 GMT -8
The fallacy is that these kids aren't paid. We've got a couple Oregon kids and they're getting 25K a year in free books, tuition and what not. The out of staters are getting closer to 45K a year in help. How many male OSU students would consider giving up their right nut (ok, let's say get a vasectomy) for that in exchange for being BMOC, playing a game for 4-5 years, free travel and getting special treatment? Heck, a fair number of these kids couldn't get into OSU if they weren't more athletic than the next guy. I wouldn't be surprised if 85 take up that deal. In tuiton and board and other directly college related stuff alone, a college is paying out the equivalent of millions each year, and that's just football. These kids are already getting paid, and that's at universities that are following the rules. they are being compensated in the form of tuition. The schools are not paying them cash. That is a very real difference. |
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Sept 29, 2017 11:27:01 GMT -8
The college basketball players that want to get paid share two common traits with Bilas: really bad math skills and lack of a fundamental understanding of how the world works.
In their world view, paying 13 college basketball players makes sense because you take the "big money" that is raked in by college basketball and divide among 13 scholarship players and you get a lot of money per player. All they see is that someone has more money than them and they want it.
But here's the problem. The volleyball and softball teams will also want the same deal, and the same rate of pay under equal opportunity statutes. Their programs don't make any revenue so the pay has to come from somewhere - the basketball and football pot of money. At OSU, that's 550 scholarship athletes that want a share of the pot. What about the walk-ons? They'll also want and get a share too. By the time the money is all redistributed, the scholarships, food table, tutoring, book allowance, and other perks might be a better deal financially.
The schools don't have access to any of the real "big money" outside of head coaching salaries. The shoe companies, media companies, the NCAA, and others are the real beneficiaries and they're not going to share to pay the players.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 29, 2017 11:31:51 GMT -8
The fallacy is that these kids aren't paid. We've got a couple Oregon kids and they're getting 25K a year in free books, tuition and what not. The out of staters are getting closer to 45K a year in help. How many male OSU students would consider giving up their right nut (ok, let's say get a vasectomy) for that in exchange for being BMOC, playing a game for 4-5 years, free travel and getting special treatment? Heck, a fair number of these kids couldn't get into OSU if they weren't more athletic than the next guy. I wouldn't be surprised if 85 take up that deal. In tuiton and board and other directly college related stuff alone, a college is paying out the equivalent of millions each year, and that's just football. These kids are already getting paid, and that's at universities that are following the rules. they are being compensated in the form of tuition. The schools are not paying them cash. That is a very real difference. No... they are getting "paid" way more than tuition. They are getting the jump on the rest of their lives... they are getting an opportunity of a lifetime paid for them. Cash is not the only way to get paid. I'm betting you do not get "cash". I'm betting if you are lucky enough to get insurance, 401k, etc that is considered "pay" and part of the benefits of 'working' that particular job. These kids, get tuition, books, access to a great school/facilities/academic assistance and tutors, healthcare, food, and fitness facilities and instruction. The only option left is to let them get jobs and work for spending money like every other kid who gets along fine without all the perks already given the athlete. But, allowing jobs opens a entire can of worms that has been exploited for years when it was allowed... basically paying players for nothing. Rich boosters basically hiring kids at their car dealerships, etc. The NCAA is not the answer... they have been broken for so long they will never be able to fix anything. It's up to schools and conferences to decide what their priorities are and move forward with or without NCAA approval. But, paying players is not the fix. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 29, 2017 13:30:52 GMT -8
The fallacy is that these kids aren't paid. We've got a couple Oregon kids and they're getting 25K a year in free books, tuition and what not. The out of staters are getting closer to 45K a year in help. How many male OSU students would consider giving up their right nut (ok, let's say get a vasectomy) for that in exchange for being BMOC, playing a game for 4-5 years, free travel and getting special treatment? Heck, a fair number of these kids couldn't get into OSU if they weren't more athletic than the next guy. I wouldn't be surprised if 85 take up that deal. In tuiton and board and other directly college related stuff alone, a college is paying out the equivalent of millions each year, and that's just football. These kids are already getting paid, and that's at universities that are following the rules. they are being compensated in the form of tuition. The schools are not paying them cash. That is a very real difference. Still... 45k is 45k. I don't care if it's in tuition or tacos. They're getting l lot more than tuition covered. They're getting school paid for and get to play football. The vast majority of these kids, after 4 or 5 years of college ball, will not even be good enough to get a chance to sit on an NFL practice squad for a season, and if they could go directly to a NFL practice squad from highschool they would have to be on that squad for at least 2 years to pay for the education they're getting for free. Don't tell me they're not getting paid to play. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 29, 2017 14:35:08 GMT -8
....this might be the ONLY way to ensure compliance. I can think of awholehelluvalotta slippery slope arguments against it. Bilas take. Bilas: Paying college athletes is the only way to fix anything es.pn/2xGqyhMvia @espn App es.pn/appDisagree wholeheartedly. 1. I agree completely with baseba1111 post above. They are paid, they are paid handsomely. I am 37 years old paying still paying a student loan off. my 15 year old will be in college before I am done (I went back to school later in life, but point remains). 2. Okay, fine. lets ignore baseba1111's post for a second. lets say no, all that stuff isn't really "pay" and we pay players. Guess what. Some schools are gonna pay more. Parity has gone out the window. It is now free market and Alabama, USC and deep pocket schools (Uh, Oregon anybody?) are gonna offer the most cash. 3. okay, fine. it can't be an open market. that is crazy. NCAA will set a stipend. All players will get $x dollars. Well, guess what. you are still gonna get bribes. You think a school paying players every month to play is somehow gonna stop donors and other interests from "$100 hand shaking" kids after every game? Lord no. What does getting paid have to do with getting bribed to go to one school or another? Paying athletes fixes nothing and opens up other issues. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Sept 29, 2017 15:51:16 GMT -8
I am not a lawyer, but I have yet to see where Federal law is being broken. NCAA rules are being broken, but the last time I looked, that might cause the "death penalty" for a program, or a suspension for a coach, but jail time?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 29, 2017 16:57:46 GMT -8
I am not a lawyer, but I have yet to see where Federal law is being broken. NCAA rules are being broken, but the last time I looked, that might cause the "death penalty" for a program, or a suspension for a coach, but jail time? Commercial bribery is a crime in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, and 31 other states. It becomes a federal crime through the Travel Act, if the U.S. Mail (even if the envelope never leaves the state) is used or interstate or foreign travel is involved. It is interesting to note that Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming do not have commercial bribery statutes, so similar actions in these 14 states may not technically constitute federal crimes. |
|
