No more rose bowl, no more fun of any kind

This analysis is worth reading.

After nearly 2½ hours of testimony, it might have been difficult for observers in the crowded courtroom to determine whether Delany was testifying for the plaintiffs or the defense. In fact, the NCAA might have been just as well off sending a member of the Drake Group or Knight Commission to the stand. The members of those academic think tanks, which have been highly critical of the commercialization of college sports, might have provided similar answers.


http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11114473/big-10-jim-delany-hurts-ncaa-case-testimony
 
Here is a proposal. Pay them $10000 a year but make them pay room board and tuition, (for many of them that means out of state tuition).
Also make them pay for all of the clothing/shoes/laundry services that they now have access to for free. Make them pay extra for the special/extra food that they eat compared to the average student. I could go on further, but hopefully you get the point by now.
 
O'Bannon is suing the wrong entity. If he's upset, he should be suing the NFL and NBA. They are the monopsony employers and they have erected the barriers to entry to him getting paid. They are the ones who have written the rules in a manner that require youngsters to have been a certain number or years removed from high school in order to earn a paycheck. Of course, Clarett already sued the NFL and lost, so the odds of success there are pretty remote.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the money in college football and basketball derives from geographic ties, alumni status and family traditions. It doesn't have one iota to do with the kids inside the uniforms. The best of those kids are biding their time trying to gain recognition and waiting out the leagues' minimum age-type requirements.

O'Bannon's lawyers are greaseballs. This is not an antitrust matter because there is not a single thing the NCAA is doing to preclude a competitive minor league for football or basketball from forming where these 5 star kids could go play their games and sell tickets and merchandise. Of course, we all know that as a practical matter, if such a league formed and tried to play on Saturdays, none of us would watch it, even if it had better players, because we would rather watch the Hawkeyes due to our geographic ties, family ties, tradition and alumni status. It's disgusting that the NCAA even has to defend this nonsense.
 
Gotta love how these guys pontificate about the dire future of college athletics while they pull down seven figure salaries. This is like if the Walton family (IE Sam Walton, Wal Mart) claimed the end of retail if they paid their employees more than a poverty wage.
. Each team in the B1G is looking at pulling in $25 million from their network. Coaches are making 5 million or more a year. Teams are building exercise buildings at $25-30 million a pop. This is the modern day equivalent of "let them eat cake". The NCAA needs to get to the table and make a deal quickly or they will have dire problems. The longer this issue is dragged out in the press the worse the NCAA looks and the more likely that they (the NCAA) starts to lose control of their conferences. Put my picture on something (other than a milk carton) and I am going to want my cut. The time is to pay. Quit whining and sign the checks.
 
HawkeyeDenis said:
Gotta love how these guys pontificate about the dire future of college athletics while they pull down seven figure salaries. This is like if the Walton family (IE Sam Walton, Wal Mart) claimed the end of retail if they paid their employees more than a poverty wage.
. Each team in the B1G is looking at pulling in $25 million from their network. Coaches are making 5 million or more a year. Teams are building exercise buildings at $25-30 million a pop. This is the modern day equivalent of "let them eat cake". The NCAA needs to get to the table and make a deal quickly or they will have dire problems. The longer this issue is dragged out in the press the worse the NCAA looks and the more likely that they (the NCAA) starts to lose control of their conferences. Put my picture on something (other than a milk carton) and I am going to want my cut. The time is to pay. Quit whining and sign the checks.
Click to expand...

What size check should a school that is losing money give out?
 
okeefe4prez said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the money in college football and basketball derives from geographic ties, alumni status and family traditions. It doesn't have one iota to do with the kids inside the uniforms. The best of those kids are biding their time trying to gain recognition and waiting out the leagues' minimum age-type requirements.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are fewer than 10 truly "national" programs. Every season, there are maybe 5 "household names" in college football; guys who non-fans recognize.

The rest...they are not rooting for the kid, they're rooting for the shirt.

In comparison to the not so raw deal college athletes get, look at what medical residents have to deal with. A medical resident has to work 80-100 hours a week, they get very little choice on where they get to go, they really can't leave if they're unhappy, and they only make about $10 an hour (with an average of $200k in debt). If they don't like it, they can quit, since they're the ones who chose to do it in the first place. Otherwise, they're stuck there 2-3 years.

An athlete, on the other hand, has about 40-60 hours a week of work, full freedom to pick the situation they want, over $70k in benefits a year for attending, the right to leave for another institution at any time, and zero debt when they're gone.
 
The players should be careful what they wish for...as a fan I would hope if we are paying the players...if you're not good enough to get on the field by your sophomore year...sorry...there is not a spot on this team for you. I feel at that point...there should be NO senior bench warmers...or feel good stories...aka...if it's really going to be semi-pro football...just win baby!
 
If they are losing money they shouldn't be fielding sports teams they can't afford. Whether a school is small or large they should all stay within their budget. When these top schools are raking in dump trucks full of cash from their athletic teams it's hard to argue about the merits of tradition or the status quo. There are a lot of reasons to improve the athletes lot and one big reason NCAA doesn't want too. Greed.
 
YWinston said:
Exactly. There are fewer than 10 truly "national" programs. Every season, there are maybe 5 "household names" in college football; guys who non-fans recognize.

The rest...they are not rooting for the kid, they're rooting for the shirt.

In comparison to the not so raw deal college athletes get, look at what medical residents have to deal with. A medical resident has to work 80-100 hours a week, they get very little choice on where they get to go, they really can't leave if they're unhappy, and they only make about $10 an hour (with an average of $200k in debt). If they don't like it, they can quit, since they're the ones who chose to do it in the first place. Otherwise, they're stuck there 2-3 years.

An athlete, on the other hand, has about 40-60 hours a week of work, full freedom to pick the situation they want, over $70k in benefits a year for attending, the right to leave for another institution at any time, and zero debt when they're gone.
Click to expand...

Spot on, man. Large universities are heavily reliant on super cheap labor to balance their budgets and keep the gravy train rolling for tenured profs, administration, athletic directors and revenue sports coaches. Everyone points fingers at for-profit colleges as being super evil and such, but even the non-profits are run nearly as ruthlessly as a Fortune 500 Company in terms of seeking revenue and reducing expenses. Classes are taught by adjuncts who get paid $2k a semester or TAs who get nothing other than a scholarship for their doctorate program. Research labs are filled by youngsters working for nothing or virtually nothing and even if some kid cures cancer and creates a $10 billion revenue stream for the university, he will see no upside from that because the university owns the patent. Medical residents deal with exactly what you pointed out. Kids on work study get minimum wage for slanging slop and doing dishes at Hillcrest.

Sure, Ed O'Bannon has a point that he may have created a bunch of revenue for his school and the NCAA, but for every one of him, and not to pick on anyone, but there are 80 Sam Brownlees and revenue siphoners from the Title IX mandated sports. NCAA athletics are the ultimate exercise in Marxism - those with substantial ability subsidize those with less ability and those who no one will pay to watch. It stinks, but it's a good lesson in paying taxes for these youngsters and is a lesson these kids will need should they be good enough to play pro ball. But to call this cross-subsidy an antitrust violation seems like quite a stretch to me. Surely Manziel could have found some scumbag semi-pro league to play in for a few years to bridge the gap to the NFL, but we all know he wouldn't have won the Heisman or been a first round pick had he done so.
 
HawkeyeDenis said:
If they are losing money they shouldn't be fielding sports teams they can't afford. Whether a school is small or large they should all stay within their budget. When these top schools are raking in dump trucks full of cash from their athletic teams it's hard to argue about the merits of tradition or the status quo. There are a lot of reasons to improve the athletes lot and one big reason NCAA doesn't want too. Greed.
Click to expand...

How many schools actually rake in a dump truck full of cash, though? I'd be surprised if it is more than 25.
 
Everyone involved with collegiate athletics is getting rich except the athletes who are driving the whole thing (except at places like tOSU, of course).
 
For the love of God, man. If you feel you are being ripped off playing college football, do not play it. Nobody is forcing you to do it.
 
MisterLucky said:
Everyone involved with collegiate athletics is getting rich except the athletes who are driving the whole thing (except at places like tOSU, of course).
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Whether or not you think players should be compensated or not, its a joke how much money the NCAA and various conferences make on college football and then consider themselves "non-profit organizations". Maybe instead of paying players the NCAA should be cracked down on, and their billion dollar tv deals should be wiped out.

Make no mistake the NCAA is simply trying to keep all of the money in their pockets. Their arguments are so hollow
 
The game and how players are managed changed a great deal in the last 30 years. So many more resources time and money, donners, networks, players, coaches all are gettings more and demanding more.

Scholarships were great when not everyone could go to college. Now way more people go to college than before so the degree is just kind of meh.. The degrees that most these guys can earn are really meh... part because they have never had to compete accademically because of sports and then if they have those skills their time is taken away from sports.

Needs to be a renewed focus on student athlete and not so much on the athlete. Entrance requirements should rise on student athletes and more focus should be made on the school part. If they can't get in their are other schools JUCOs they can play to try to get to the show.


Spelling errors all over i am sure
 
mopkins said:
Exactly this. Whether or not you think players should be compensated or not, its a joke how much money the NCAA and various conferences make on college football and then consider themselves "non-profit organizations". Maybe instead of paying players the NCAA should be cracked down on, and their billion dollar tv deals should be wiped out.

Make no mistake the NCAA is simply trying to keep all of the money in their pockets. Their arguments are so hollow
Click to expand...

Ahhh...but those TV deals and deal-makers are ALSO the ones touting the "fairness" and "exploitation" of said athletes.

It's pretty simple, really. Athletes are offered scholarships. They can choose which one they will accept. And of course, many of those athletes now do the Hat Ceremony drama, lining a table with several hats and playing David Copperfield before actually putting on the hat of choice.

If it's THAT important and they are REALLY not "student"-athletes, and they REALLY are hard-working kids who are just being "exploited", maybe these 18-year old kids--and in some cases, the 2-year old kids they have fathered and get to tote along to the HAT Ceremony--could just dispense with the Hat Ceremony, sign the LOI, and start being all-around "student" athletes. Ya think? (That last question is rhetorical, of course).

And before anyone goes on and on with the exploitation thing, and how athletes are so downtrodden, I offer two words: Jameis Winston

Exploited? Downtrodden? Yeah, right...
 
Players should not be getting cash.....period. They already get free room/board/tuition, and other "perks"...they don't need more.

Once players start getting paid, then that is the end of college football as we know it. It will be nothing more than an NFL farm system. Money has already affected the sport....let's not ruin it completely.
 
HawkeyeDenis said:
If they are losing money they shouldn't be fielding sports teams they can't afford. Whether a school is small or large they should all stay within their budget. When these top schools are raking in dump trucks full of cash from their athletic teams it's hard to argue about the merits of tradition or the status quo. There are a lot of reasons to improve the athletes lot and one big reason NCAA doesn't want too. Greed.
Click to expand...

If this were the case, then each school would have an average of maybe 3-4 sports teams? If that. Some schools wouldn't be able to offer any sports at all. Is that what you want?

In a fantasy world, your scenario works, but in the real world here in reality, your scenario doesn't work at all. It's just not feasible, brah.
 
MisterLucky said:
Everyone involved with collegiate athletics is getting rich except the athletes who are driving the whole thing (except at places like tOSU, of course).
Click to expand...
That's dumb. Another analogy is people on Jeopardy. People don't watch for the contestants. They watch because it's Jeopardy. A small portion of Jeopardy contestants make money. The rest get s mall amount and the pride of being on the show.

People don't "donate" to Iowa every year to see Jake Rudock. They pay to see that shiny Tigerhawk on their heads. Who that head belongs to is immaterial. The athletes are not driving college football. They are replaceable cogs representing an institution that has value to people. The universities drive college football.
 
Just a reminder, this case is about revenue generated from images of players. This is not an action to compel the NCAA or Universities to start paying players for playing. It is related but a broader issue.

to clarify my earlier point, Title IX has nothing to do with athletes sharing revenue generated from photos of the athletes. Should the plantif prevail the athlete will get paid for licensing images of their likeness. The spoils will go to the victor(s)

And it makes me wonder.....If I were a high flying recruit .... would my decision factor in where I could cash in the best from my image. I think that's what Delaney is talking about.

Are they assuming that allowing players to receive payment for their image would then create a prescident for paying for play>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top