PhoenixHawk
Well-Known Member
Now that we're getting a playoff, the Pro Football crowd has their sights on paying players as turning CFB into NFL-lite.
Miller: Athletes are ALREADY Getting Paid
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Seth53
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/m...ing-college-athletes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
And for the record, I hope Ed O'Bannon wins and wins big....that 'll at least put the end to the NCAA's hypocrisy regarding amateur status and commercialism.
And hey EA...you moochers....glad to see some of that revenue stream going back to the people you ripped off....that's right....the "amateur" college FB "student". Excellent.
And for the record, I hope Ed O'Bannon wins and wins big....that 'll at least put the end to the NCAA's hypocrisy regarding amateur status and commercialism.
And hey EA...you moochers....glad to see some of that revenue stream going back to the people you ripped off....that's right....the "amateur" college FB "student". Excellent.
Seth53
Well-Known Member
Big Ten's Delany: Let pros start minor leagues if athletes want pay - CBSSports.com
This represents the weakest of weak sauce. Barely thinly veiled as "we want to keep ours."
His argument is so full of holes, it rivals swiss cheese.
This is the same guy who argued for years against a Div-1 FB playoff, now, is a big supporter.
Things will be a-changin Mr. Delaney. Get on board or get out of the way.
This represents the weakest of weak sauce. Barely thinly veiled as "we want to keep ours."
His argument is so full of holes, it rivals swiss cheese.
This is the same guy who argued for years against a Div-1 FB playoff, now, is a big supporter.
Things will be a-changin Mr. Delaney. Get on board or get out of the way.
smhawk
Well-Known Member
The product that people come to see is based on the players and coaches. But mostly players. Ncaa football is a business that pushes milions. While maybe unfair a flat rate per player payment is very reasonable. But should only be for teams that are profitable so excluding field hockey.
I take it you are a TavernHawk. Because if you were not, you would know plenty of Iowa Football players have graduated with degrees in areas such as engineering, and biology (premed).
There are schools that bring in players and have special athlete only courses of study ( SEC). Iowa is NOT one of those schools.
But, if you want to get rid of this whole talk. Go to a common core of freshman and sophomore general education content courses with a set group of assessment items and make all athletes take these exams in a room with an NCAA official present and require a C or better on all these exams and you will see this problem go away in an instant.
But this is why more and more I am for the P12 and B1G just splitting off and starting an academic first sports division. I would even suggest going freshmen ineligible rule. Everybody keeps thinking the issue is amateurism vs professionalism. It should really be academics vs athletics. Until someone gets a grip on the fact that more and more the "student" in student athlete is getting shorn away, this issue will not go away.
I just think it is funny how nobody is wondering if Johnny Football is actually doing the work in those online courses he is taking, but they are freaking out on whether or not he got paid to sign jerseys. Has anyone asked Arian Foster if he got a degree?
Last edited:
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Delaney is a lot of things...not sure weak sauce is one of them. Small stipends may happen...
MeatMan
Well-Known Member
i think it's because nobody thinks he's taking legit classes. that would be more of a surprise than that he was getting paid under the table.
Billso
Well-Known Member
What are the holes in his argument? And what is it you want him to "get on board"?
The Nocera article is as idiotic now as it was when first printed 2 years ago. He doesn't understand the difference between a booster/agent paying a kid vs. the school paying all kids, and he doesn't understand Title IX.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
yes Jon - the popular ideal at the moment is that players should get played... .because the NCAA/Universities make so much money of them.
But yes it's quite ridiculous - they are getting paid. In scholarship money they make more (much more in some cases) than the NFL min.
People like Jay Bilas are totally missing the boat on this.
But yes it's quite ridiculous - they are getting paid. In scholarship money they make more (much more in some cases) than the NFL min.
People like Jay Bilas are totally missing the boat on this.
Seth53
Well-Known Member
I'm in fact the antithesis of a tavern hawk.
And as far as the numbers you claim to know, lay them out....% who actually got a degree from when Fry took over....then break that number down into "significant" and "non-significant".
Until then, I'll stand by my reasoning most people basically stay eligible and go to school to play FB.
(I had the experience at NIACC and Elsworth awhile ago...decided I didnt' want to be a gym teacher....gave it up for a difficult Iowa degree.)
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
I like Bilas a lot. I just couldn't disagree with him more on this one.
So much wrong will come from paying student athletes
So much wrong will come from paying student athletes
Seth53
Well-Known Member
He needs to get on board with the fact the NCAA/member schools are a corporation, making billions of dollars a year off the kids who bust their ***** 50+ hours a week to do so.
Two things about title IX: It's a law. Laws can be challenged. Title IX has been challenged several times, albeit unsuccessfully. The supreme court has yet to hear an argument since its inception in 1972. Originally designed to protect against gender discrimination, it has in fact diminished the number of opportunities for males to compete in various sports. The fact will continue to be argued until a circuit court agrees with the plaintiff, and, the supreme court eventually hears it.
Title IX as far as I understand it only pertains to entities which receive federal funding. If a Mega conference of schools can self support themselves athletically (like Iowa does), then it's a moot point. That day will ;probably come.
As far as Delaney goes....the major 'hole' is nobody will go watch a semi-pro college-age game near the to the extent fans will watch a college team...thus it's a moot point. It's all about protecting the revenue stream....to hell with the rank and file athletes who make the money. The NCAA FB and BB programs are the developmental leagues of the pros. As such, I say, if Title IX is too encumbering to overcome, then, let the pro's pay the players in the college money making sports...FB and BB. Radical you say....so was the idea of a division 1 playoff ten years ago.
Delaney, most athletic directors, etc are scared to death if O'Bannon wins his case. But I say somebody will step up as the next Curt Flood.
PhoenixHawk
Well-Known Member
See, you're kinda making the point of why you shouldn't be paying the players. People want to watch college football, not the individual players that happen to be wearing the uniforms and become heros only by doing so. If people want to watch professionals at the peak of the game, they can go watch pro ball. If people want to watch kids, 90% of whom will never sniff the grass in a NFL stadium, play for their colleges, they'll do that. What's the need to turn college ball into NFL jr and pay them? If they don't want the scholarship, they can do something else. There are 10 other kids busting their can for that roster spot, and the fans will still tune in on Saturdays.
They shouldn't have gone to a playoff, and they shouldn't start paying players. I wish the NFL jr crowd would just go and watch the NFL if they are so freaking enamored with salaried players and playoffs. One pro football league is enough.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Well said. Although I do like the concept of playoffs, if only to have less perceived subjectivity to crown a champion...and the thrill of albeit "micro" tournament competition.
But then again, I prefer college to pro sports...for a lot of the same reasons I don't think college athletes should be "paid" beyond that of free college...and perhaps a small stipend. Just one mans opinion
Seth53
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but the whole NCAA Div-1 already *is* a big business. Just like the pro's.
A scholarship, for reasons I've stated, doesn't even come close to the value (money!) the kids put back into the school, coach's pockets, athletic director's pockets, support staff jobs, peripheral vendors, on-line school garb, on and on and on. Not even close.
MeatMan
Well-Known Member
I understand the "busy life of the college athlete" argument. And it's one of the few in this whole debate that I actually think has merit. Athletes are asked to balance an extreme load between training and regular academic responsibilities. I'm going to set aside, for a moment, the fact that they ARE compensated for this with tuition, books, room and board. I think one can fairly argue that the demands of an athlete's training schedule can prevent them, as Seth mentioned early on, from pursuing some courses of study that are particularly demanding. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that it would be difficult, at best, for them to truly be the best students they can in ANY field of study. There's simply no denying that training regimens and schedules have grown more demanding and will continue to as long as the money associated with college athletics continues to rise. And while their tuition is still being paid, more has been demanded of them without corresponding adjustments in compensation.
I'm with you. I buy it and I believe that is true. Now, would an additional stipend on top of the scholarship change any of that? Hell no. It does absolutley nothing to alleviate the core of that problem. If the goal is really to allow them the opportunity to get the best college education possible additional money WHILE THEY'RE PLAYING will not help that at all. Not in the least.
I would be in favor of athletes accumulating an additional semester scholarship for each full academic year they were a part of the team. Four year athletes would earn an additional two years of tuition to be used when their eligibiltiy expired. Five year athletes (redshirts) would earn an additional 2 1/2 years of tuition. That should be more than enough to allow all but the most challenged students to earn the degree of their choice regardless of its academic demands. In many cases, I suspect that would be enough to even pay for the early part of graduate school if one so chose.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that compensation for athletes needs to be reconsidered in the current era of athletics. But pay-for-play isn't the answer.
I'm with you. I buy it and I believe that is true. Now, would an additional stipend on top of the scholarship change any of that? Hell no. It does absolutley nothing to alleviate the core of that problem. If the goal is really to allow them the opportunity to get the best college education possible additional money WHILE THEY'RE PLAYING will not help that at all. Not in the least.
I would be in favor of athletes accumulating an additional semester scholarship for each full academic year they were a part of the team. Four year athletes would earn an additional two years of tuition to be used when their eligibiltiy expired. Five year athletes (redshirts) would earn an additional 2 1/2 years of tuition. That should be more than enough to allow all but the most challenged students to earn the degree of their choice regardless of its academic demands. In many cases, I suspect that would be enough to even pay for the early part of graduate school if one so chose.
I think it's absolutely fair to say that compensation for athletes needs to be reconsidered in the current era of athletics. But pay-for-play isn't the answer.
hawkeyegrant
Well-Known Member
Mostly all of you sound like socialists. And I always thought Jon was a conservative. So why is it okay to pay everyone the same when their value is completely different? Johnny Football can't make cash off autographs while his school sells Johnny Football T-shirts, yet he gets the same scholly as bench warmers. That's cool with everyone here though, right?
Are all of you in favor of this model planning on moving to Mother Russia soon? Come on and defend capitalism everyone. Here will come the gang trying to tell me how they can go do something else to make money.
Are all of you in favor of this model planning on moving to Mother Russia soon? Come on and defend capitalism everyone. Here will come the gang trying to tell me how they can go do something else to make money.
I agree with you. But I don't see that particular aspect of the story as an issue with college athletics. The issue there is with the NFL collective bargaining agreement. I think Johnny Football should be able to make money off his jerseys, his shoes, his autographs, etc... And I think he should be able to choose between a shot at the pros (where he's allowed to do so) or a gig in the amature ranks (where he's not) whenever he wants to. But in this case it's the NFL that forces players into college by placing limits on when they can become eligible for the draft.
Billso
Well-Known Member
He understands that very well.
Title IX is not limited to athletics as commonly believed, and it applies to the entire university. If the University of Iowa receives federal funding of any kind (and it received $246 million this year across dozens of departments), the university as a whole is subject to Title IX. There is ZERO chance the Big Ten is going to walk away from $$$ billions in federal funding. Title IX and Sex Discrimination
Nobody watches the NBA D-league, but it serves a purpose nonetheless. Again, Delany understands the landscape. A football D-league, as with the NBA D-league, would attract a certain class of player that truly has zero interest or ability in college courses. It would be a small subset of players, and wouldn't get TV interest, but it would serve a useful purpose.
Maybe, but there may also be workarounds available even if O'Bannon wins.
Last edited:
