No more rose bowl, no more fun of any kind

[Seth53]

The players definitely are under-valued and under-compensated. And all degrees are not created equal.
More games, more work-outs, not home for Thanksgiving, a true year-round commitment, steered into easier classes so they can stay eligible, on and on.

NCAA and this entire amateur student/athlete is a joke. A complete joke. When's the last time an all-american or all-B1G academic team made the paper? How does the B1G rank, say, the last 25 years in academic GPA? Nobody paying over $1K for tickets like me gives a damm what the GPA or graduation rate is.....it's all about wins....period.

And Delaney jumps to whatever side of the fence the wind is blowing. For *years* he was against the playoff system and for the BCS. Once the playoff really got traction, <<jump>>....there he went.

 

[SonofaSailor]

If in fact there is a compensation mandate, it will not be the players who decide what is fair. The universities will not decide, nor will the NCAA decide. Title IX will decide what is fair.

It will be out of their hands in in the hands of the US Govt.

All athletes or none gentlemen.

And this times 100...you're not going to pay football players 100x and then pay volleyball players x.

You think the O'Bannon lawsuit was ground breaking? Just wait until THAT lawsuit comes through...that is a slam dunk case.

Every athlete would have to be paid exactly the same.

 

[bigjim]

If the NCAA starts paying players I personally think it is going to ruining the college gm. That's what makes college football so good is players playing for the pride of your school not a pay check

 

[homes]

There are other intangible benefits to being an athlete in a major sport at a D1 school, one of which is a leg up in the regional job market after college.

Also, if you pay the players, I assume they'll be taxed on that income, and once that happens, would their scholarships be income?

If we're trying to be "fair", should every player get the same amount of money - that seems fair. Or, should the better players get more since they're the ones that help put butts in the seats - that seems fair, too. Or should each player be able to negotiate their own deal with a school, that could include other incentives as well - that also seems fair. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The point being, you can't evaluate this thing from a "fairness" perspective, because that can yield a lot of results that each bear their own set of inequities.

It might not seem fair to some that these schools and the NCAA are making tons of money and the athletes aren't getting a larger slice of the pie, but the system is working.

The one aspect of the O'Bannon case is the use of images of these guys in a video game created by an outside company, such as EA Sports. I don't know enough about what they've consented to but I wonder if when he signed on at UCLA, he had agreed that his likeness could be used in a for profit venture like a video game.

 

[uihawk82]

You do realize that not all schools will be able to pay players the same amount, which would make collegiate competition more uneven than it already is, right?

That could easily be solved by money transferred from the huge NCAA coffers.

Listen, I think monies should be put in a trust fund in total for student athlete injuries and pay. Not huge pay but definitely for medical expenses.

 

[YWinston]

No one doubts that college players get paid in the form of a scholarship. The simple fact is that they should be able to negotiate a better deal. Who ever said a scholarship is a fair price for banging their heads in 20 hours a week for 5 years? If they do not like it they do not have to play.

The right to negotiate a better deal would make sense if they didn't VOLUNTARILY sign a binding letter of intent that clearly spells out the compensation for attending the school. Incidentally, the agreement is only for one academic year, and the athlete is free to walk away at any time they choose.

 

[uihawk82]

Walk through any major college programs facilities and tell me they dont spend money on the athletes. The money has grown. The money spent has grown.

First and foremost, the money spent on facilities are to attract players and fans thus improving their product and hopefully more wins. Facilities are all focused ultimately to the school's bottom line.

I dont see a problem with coming up with a formula based on time spent on practice and monies generated and the monies can be placed in an overall trust fund because not all schools can afford this.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Players are paid already. Last I checked tuition, room and board are the payments for playing sports for the university. Not only that, the players have the opportunity to take the universities assets (Stadium, training facilities, coaching staffs, fan base, and recognizable brand) and turn those into millions of dollars. The very least a college player receives from the university is a free education. The very most they can receive is the training, and platform to then take the skill they have learned into the market place (NFL) and make millions and millions of dollars.

In addition, players who ride the pine get the same "pay" as star players.

Where I WOULD argue against NCAA and members is marketing of jerseys and likenesses. Players DO have SOME argument in that case. For every argument, after all, that says nobody comes to watch chemistry/literature/etc. students, in the same vein, nobody goes to Iowa City on a Saturday to catch a glimpse of Barta's or Delaney's a&&. At least I hope tha'ts the case...

 

[Knight78]

Not for profit doesn't mean you can't turn a profit. It means you don't keep the profit. Frankly, a lot of those profits are going back to the athlete.

Where do you think the money for those strength training centers, professional style locker rooms, athlete dedicated academic buildings, and charter travel comes from? Yeah, the athletes are not explicitly paid, but they are certainly not wanting for world-class accommodations.

Keep going.... how about the jumbotrons? The new playing surface every few years? The new gear the athletes are constantly getting? And don't forget that the money "made" by the football and mens basketball programs goes into ALL of the other athletics programs offered at Iowa as they are the only ones "making" money... and we don't even have a full complement of sports that, for example, Wisconsin, Minnesota or Northwestern have.

The athletes ARE in fact paid. Ask any who have graduated and NOT made the next level; they would probably all heap praise upon the university for their degree that got them started. You know, the degree that cost $6,678 (tuition) per year for in-state and $24,900 for out-of-state students. Over 4 years (or is it 5 now?) that's a big chunk of change.

 

[Knight78]

No one doubts that college players get paid in the form of a scholarship. The simple fact is that they should be able to negotiate a better deal. Who ever said a scholarship is a fair price for banging their heads in 20 hours a week for 5 years? If they do not like it they do not have to play.

The question is who is watching the watchers? THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT to ensure that this level of compensation is a fair deal. When coaches AD's administrators, and NCAA presidents make 2 million $ ++ whereas college players get only a scholarship, it is indicative of the fact that those people decided the way in which to slice the pie. All the players want is a seat at the table, yes they should get that seat and yes their slice of the pie seems to be too small.

There are profits being made, and they are being used inefficiently or without input from the people who fairly earned them. If there were no excess money then there would be nothing to fight over. The scholarship is not enough "payment", players need to be paid more, it is only fair, and fairness is what the NCAA professes to stand for.

Who lied to you and told you life would EVER be fair?

 

[GoHawks24]

The players definitely are under-valued and under-compensated. And all degrees are not created equal.
More games, more work-outs, not home for Thanksgiving, a true year-round commitment, steered into easier classes so they can stay eligible, on and on.

NCAA and this entire amateur student/athlete is a joke. A complete joke. When's the last time an all-american or all-B1G academic team made the paper? How does the B1G rank, say, the last 25 years in academic GPA? Nobody paying over $1K for tickets like me gives a damm what the GPA or graduation rate is.....it's all about wins....period.

And Delaney jumps to whatever side of the fence the wind is blowing. For *years* he was against the playoff system and for the BCS. Once the playoff really got traction, <<jump>>....there he went.

That's because he's a wonderful business man. He's going to be on whatever side is the most beneficial for his members, which I am totally OK with. It's all about maximizing profits, and he's doing a damn good job of it currently.

 

[Knight78]

If in fact there is a compensation mandate, it will not be the players who decide what is fair. The universities will not decide, nor will the NCAA decide. Title IX will decide what is fair.

It will be out of their hands in in the hands of the US Govt.

All athletes or none gentlemen.

Well said. Who says that a women's lacrosse player doesn't deserve at least the same as a football player? Or a baseball player? Or a diver? Or a golfer? Or an crewman? (I can go on to the 22 sports offered at Iowa)

 

[GoHawks24]

No one doubts that college players get paid in the form of a scholarship. The simple fact is that they should be able to negotiate a better deal. Who ever said a scholarship is a fair price for banging their heads in 20 hours a week for 5 years? If they do not like it they do not have to play.

The question is who is watching the watchers? THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT to ensure that this level of compensation is a fair deal. When coaches AD's administrators, and NCAA presidents make 2 million $ ++ whereas college players get only a scholarship, it is indicative of the fact that those people decided the way in which to slice the pie. All the players want is a seat at the table, yes they should get that seat and yes their slice of the pie seems to be too small.

There are profits being made, and they are being used inefficiently or without input from the people who fairly earned them. If there were no excess money then there would be nothing to fight over. The scholarship is not enough "payment", players need to be paid more, it is only fair, and fairness is what the NCAA professes to stand for.

You don't actually believe that, right? Their actions are in direct contradiction to that. Ask PSU or OSU what they think about the NCAA's "fairness".

 

[Knight78]

More games, more work-outs, not home for Thanksgiving, a true year-round commitment, steered into easier classes so they can stay eligible, on and on.

I played D3 basketball back in the '70s. The one thing you may or may not know is that at the D3 level, there are NO athletic scholarships. And basketball affects first AND second semesters; football only truly affects the first semester.

I missed all the family Thanksgivings due to holiday tournaments. And I only got 2 days off at Christmas each year due to holiday tournaments. I was not, however, steered into easier classes. I took classes with people who are now doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. And as far as year-round commitment? We were expected to come to school in the fall in shape and ready to being pre-season training.

 

[GoHawks24]

Well said. Who says that a women's lacrosse player doesn't deserve at least the same as a football player? Or a baseball player? Or a diver? Or a golfer? Or an crewman? (I can go on to the 22 sports offered at Iowa)

It's such a fine line they they're going to have to walk. The wear and tear on the body issue would have to be taken into account, right? Nothing against basketball or baseball players or swimmers/divers/lacrosse players, etc., I know they bust their ***** and that their bodies go through a lot too, but do really take on as much abuse and physicality as a football player? And then you have the whole other issue of what kind of revenue each respective sport brings in. Is it really fair to split it evenly amongst all of the school's sports programs when the football program is bringing in the majority of it? I don't think any way they slice it is going to be totally "fair" and like somebody already pointed, "fair" is totally subjective. It's quite the quandary, that's for sure.

 

[Knight78]

First and foremost, the money spent on facilities are to attract players and fans thus improving their product and hopefully more wins. Facilities are all focused ultimately to the school's bottom line.

I dont see a problem with coming up with a formula based on time spent on practice and monies generated and the monies can be placed in an overall trust fund because not all schools can afford this.

Incorrect. "Facilities are all focused ultimately to the ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT'S bottom line." There, FIFY.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

No one doubts that college players get paid in the form of a scholarship. The simple fact is that they should be able to negotiate a better deal. Who ever said a scholarship is a fair price for banging their heads in 20 hours a week for 5 years? If they do not like it they do not have to play.

The question is who is watching the watchers? THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT to ensure that this level of compensation is a fair deal. When coaches AD's administrators, and NCAA presidents make 2 million $ ++ whereas college players get only a scholarship, it is indicative of the fact that those people decided the way in which to slice the pie. All the players want is a seat at the table, yes they should get that seat and yes their slice of the pie seems to be too small.

There are profits being made, and they are being used inefficiently or without input from the people who fairly earned them. If there were no excess money then there would be nothing to fight over. The scholarship is not enough "payment", players need to be paid more, it is only fair, and fairness is what the NCAA professes to stand for.

I work for a huge corporation that makes $billions in profits each year. I work
very hard and my performance contributes to my companies bottom line. I get
paid a relative pittance and I could be laid off at any time and for no "stated"
reason. If college athletes are paid (regardless of whether it is during or
after they play for a college), the effect is they become an employee. You can
rest assured that many college coaches would simply "fire" a player if they
don't contribute, or even if they are injured. If an injured player gets "let
go" they would likely be left with trying to foot their medical bills and rehab
for the injury that caused them to be let go.

While I can understand the
arguement players have (some rules surrounding their ability to earn spending
money, particularly, during the offseason is archaic and should be revised:
let's make off season training a supervised event and not "voluntary" and pay an
athlete $10 per hour for all off season training), let's not forget that a
typical college student and their families go into debt by (sometimes) hundreds
of thousands of dollars, to pay for the opportunity to gain a college
education. College athletes, on the other hand, receive hundreds of thousands
of dollars, in the form of free education, training table and access to medical
staff. If a student gets the flu, does a university pay their doctor's bill?
If an athlete gets the flu, does the university provide their medical
care?

This is more about a money grab than anything else. I believe that
the NCAA is a non profit organization; therefore, they should not feel any
financial concern if they have to start paying for long term medical care for
college kids who suffer (potential) carreer ending injuries. If the player
signs a profession contract, the NCAA could (under specific circumstances) be
released of their financial medical obligation to that player. Non profits are
supposed to spend all of their money, each fiscal year, as I understand it.
Even if that is not a requirement for a non profit, the NCAA has plenty of cash
to undertake this action.

To me, the crux of the situation is that you
have lawyers and/or agents, who want to be able to represent college athletes
and receive a commission. The percentage of "star athletes" throughout NCAA
football and basketball (revenue generating sports) is relatively small. Would
these athletes be willing to have a portion of "their share" be distributed to a
player that didn't play one down in 4 seasons? These players would technically
deserve a share because they contributed to the overall team performance by
participating in practices and film sessions, etc, and would argue they
helped make the "star player" better.

We should also recognize that
college football players, likely, do not make an NFL roster, but for the
technique and fundamentals coaching and weight training they receive from their
school, along with the time (in years) it takes them to become physically and
emotionally mature enough to participate in a professional sport. The other
choice a high school football player has is to skip college, and train on their
own or (more likely) play for a "D league" type of team.

Yes, paying
college athletes for their participation would ruin college athletics as we know
it, today. Personally, I'd stop watching and if enough other like-minded folks
do the same, then the sports opportunities at this level will go away.

 

[Knight78]

It's such a fine line they they're going to have to walk. The wear and tear on the body issue would have to be taken into account, right? Nothing against basketball or baseball players or swimmers/divers/lacrosse players, etc., I know they bust their ***** and that their bodies go through a lot too, but do really take on as much abuse and physicality as a football player? And then you have the whole other issue of what kind of revenue each respective sport brings in. Is it really fair to split it evenly amongst all of the school's sports programs when the football program is bringing in the majority of it? I don't think any way they slice it is going to be totally "fair" and like somebody already pointed, "fair" is totally subjective. It's quite the quandary, that's for sure.

Define "fair". (I hate that word - ask my kids and they will quote my by-line)

Look at the specific case of Theairra Taylor. I'd say she went through a lot during her time at Iowa. More so than a football player who is good enough to make the team but not good enough to get playing time.

I just have a hard time coming up with "fair". I believe in equal opportunities but I do NOT believe in equal outcomes.

 

[JonDMiller]

There is just so much money pouring into college athletics, to the NCAA and institutions...I feel a scholarship and all the branding value that goes with it is enormous. That said, Delany and Emmert and the gang can't sit here and say that it would cut out the heart of amatuerism if the players were paid because of 100 year old traditions. Earning billions in TV revenue isn't a hundred year old tradition, either.

 

[Seth53]

I played D3 basketball back in the '70s. The one thing you may or may not know is that at the D3 level, there are NO athletic scholarships. And basketball affects first AND second semesters; football only truly affects the first semester.

I missed all the family Thanksgivings due to holiday tournaments. And I only got 2 days off at Christmas each year due to holiday tournaments. I was not, however, steered into easier classes. I took classes with people who are now doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. And as far as year-round commitment? We were expected to come to school in the fall in shape and ready to being pre-season training.

Agree 100% with your D-III synopsis. It's the purest of the collegiate sports worlds. I have two friends of mine who played D-III, and, JUCO BB and FB respectively in the 70s. Sports were a *part* of their overall collegiate experience. The respective sport didn't drive things campus wide, nor did they incur head-scratching interference like overwhelming time commitments or being subjected/mandated to 'stay eligible' academic tracts.

However, D-I football, and BB, n 2014, are entirely different animals. They're big business. They're huge business. Supporting the entire other sports teams and other on-campus endeavors. Year around commitment. On and on. Both my brother and I knew plenty of wrestlers at Iowa during the late 70s and early 80s...a program of that magnitude...it was a wonder they had any life at all.

I do like your input from 70s D3, but apples and oranges I'm afraid.