College Playoffs - Did they get it right?

[Spider-Dan]

It would be easier to buy the "they are just volunteers earning an education!" angle if the two major pro football and basketball leagues did not effectively require prospective employees to submit themselves to the NCAA system.  If you want to play in the NFL or NBA, playing anywhere except the NCAA does immeasurable harm to your prospects as a professional.

When you look at the graduation rates of major college FB/BB programs, it is impossible to claim with a straight face that these students are being compensated with an education.  Tell me, which football player has the option to say, "sorry coach, I can't practice today, I really need to study for finals?"  They are not student athletes; they are athletes who happen to play for a school.

The system is set up for short-term exploitation of the value of young athletes (who are frequently from low-income backgrounds).  To claim otherwise is almost absurd.

[MikeO]

Agree with MikeO that paying players opens up a can of worms (which players? which sports? which schools? how much?) that is best left hermetically sealed and buried in a time capsule, to be dug up and reconsidered maybe 20-30 years in the future.

One possible compromise... Allow players to make a limited amount of "extra money" by signing autographs or doing commercial endorsements. Set a reasonable cap of, say, $2,000-$3,000 per month that they can earn doing these endorsements, and set restrictions like:

* Only allowing these activities to be done at times that would not conflict with classes or organized team activities.
* Don't allow the student athlete to endorse any product or sponsor that would reflect negatively on the college or the NCAA. In other words, no casinos or other gambling endorsements, no alcohol or firearms, etc..., and have the college pre-approve sponsors before the student can perform the endorsement.
* The student athlete must maintain an acceptable grade point average, class attendance record and not get into any legal trouble.

I agree with all of that. And tying endorsement money to their grade point average would be a brilliant idea.  You want to get paid on the side, have a 3.0 or better. Don't have a 3.0, well then your scholarship prohibits you from earning money. Not sure that is legal but I like the concept

[MikeO]

I'm just surprised that all of these free-market people don't support the free market.  Jameis Winston is making FSU MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars.  He could go to another school and make them MILLIONS AND MILLIONS instead.  Yet, they give him an education he doesn't need and a meal plan.  Give me a friggin' break.

If he doesn't need the education don't go to FSU. It's not a god given right to play in the NFL! He can wait 3 years removed from High School and still enter the NFL Draft. He doesn't need to go to college.

Colleges are hiding behind "student athlete" because they are getting filthy rich on the backs of teenagers.

College aren't hiding anything. The scholarship letter is in normal sized font and not fine print. Each player signs it knowing the rules and its is clear as day. States all the rules and what is and what isn't allowed. Nobody is putting a gun to the kids head forcing them to sign it

[Spider-Dan]

If he doesn't need the education don't go to FSU. It's not a god given right to play in the NFL! He can wait 3 years removed from High School and still enter the NFL Draft. He doesn't need to go to college.

And if he doesn't play for a college, then he loses millions of dollars in contract value when he goes to the NFL.  Some choice.

If you want to say "no one is forcing them to sign it," then don't complain when the students unionize and/or sue to break apart this exploitative system.

[Phishfan]

I'm all for these guys making their own money but having the schools pay a salary is going to blow up college sports as we know it. There is no way to pay every football player anything substantial much less when you consider adding in other sports. This proposal would force some more schools to drop football and many schools to drop other sports. If your goal is to drop extracurricular activities for athletes competing in things such as soccer, baseball, track and field, and yes even some football teams so that the Jameis Winstons of the world can "get paid" I really think your priorities are wrong.

Where does it stop? Medical doctors have to go to medical school don't they? They have required rounds to make during their student tenures. Why are we not paying med students? What about students working on projects in research labs? Let's get them a salary also? Hell there is plenty to go around, until the realization comes that there isn't.

[Dave Gray]

I'm all for these guys making their own money but having the schools pay a salary is going to blow up college sports as we know it.

OK.  Granted.  And I'm not even necessarily saying that schools SHOULD pay.  But them not being allowed to earn compensation is nuts.

But the bigger response to: "...is going to blow up college sports as we know it" is "So what?  Who cares?"  You don't do things that are wrong and exploitative to help prop up an industry.  College sports will exist if they're financially viable to exist.  If the market can't afford for them to pay players, they won't. 

Do you realize that if you see Jameis Winston in a bar that you can't buy him a drink?  What...the...fuck?  His coach can't take him to lunch.  He doesn't get to sell HIS OWN LIKENESS to video games, but the NCAA gets to do it and make money.

[Brian Fein]

Do you realize that if you see Jameis Winston in a bar that you can't buy him a drink?  What...the...fuck?  His coach can't take him to lunch.  He doesn't get to sell HIS OWN LIKENESS to video games, but the NCAA gets to do it and make money.

I agree with all your statements here but these comments are a far cry from outright paying players as employees.  You're speaking towards overly stringent NCAA regulations regarding players and I agree that this is a problem.  But, at the same time I understand their purpose... they are to prevent schools from paying players through disguising salaries as "taking him to lunch" 40 times a day for 4 years.

 And I disagree with your "Jameis Winston is making FSU millions of dollars" perspective.  He is one player on a 90-man team, which makes millions of dollars.  If Jameis Winston evaporated tomorrow, FSU football still makes millions of dollars.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm all for these guys making their own money but having the schools pay a salary is going to blow up college sports as we know it. There is no way to pay every football player anything substantial much less when you consider adding in other sports. This proposal would force some more schools to drop football and many schools to drop other sports.

Why would paying football and basketball players "force" schools to drop other sports?

This is the football training complex for the University of Oregon.  (Please note the sixty-four 55" televisions in the lobby.)  But if we pay the players, the next thing that has to go is the non-revenue-generating sports?



In 39 of 50 states, the highest-paid public employee is a football or basketball coach.  (In 5 of the 11 remaining states, the highest-paid public employee is a college president.)  But if we pay the players, the next thing that has to go is the non-revenue-generating sports?

I fundamentally reject your basic premise that the choice is between paying the players and offering the other sports.

Where does it stop? Medical doctors have to go to medical school don't they? They have required rounds to make during their student tenures. Why are we not paying med students? What about students working on projects in research labs? Let's get them a salary also?

Those students are allowed to get jobs and make money off of their skills!  In fact, as long as you are not an athlete, ANY OTHER STUDENT can take any job that they are not prohibited by law from performing, at any salary the employer chooses, and no one has a damn thing to say about it.  This is the entire reason we're having this discussion!

If the NCAA didn't prohibit players from making their own money, this wouldn't be a problem.  Jameis Winston could make more than enough in endorsements to make a salary from the school unnecessary.

[Phishfan]

Do you realize that if you see Jameis Winston in a bar that you can't buy him a drink?  What...the...fuck?  His coach can't take him to lunch. 

Widely misinterpreted. I could buy Jameis a drink, I just couldn't do it because he is a famous football star. As for your coach scenario, it is tricky but depending on the situation. It can be allowed or could be a violation. There just isn't enough of a specific scenario laid out to refute it or support it.

[Phishfan]

Why would paying football and basketball players "force" schools to drop other sports?

Sure they are going to make cuts to the one program they have making the money for the institution while continuing to support non-revenue sports. That just makes perfect sense financially and I can't argue against it. You win.

[Spider-Dan]

Believe it or not, it's possible to run the football program without a multi-million dollar practice facility rivaling that of many pro teams.  And you don't have to make your head coach the highest paid public employee in the state.

It's like you're arguing for the priorities of a professional sports team and not an academic institution.  They don't have any shareholders to report to.

[Phishfan]

^^^ I agree completely but there are drawbacks. The biggest, your team falls behind in the recruiting of the top tier talents that have put you in the national spotlight which causes all that revenue money you think is there to disappear.

If you begin paying any athletes with school funds directly you are going to have to pay all athletes and the system falls apart. It is that simple. I'm all for letting them get compensated but using the school funds is the biggest mistake anyone has considered on this topic.

[Spider-Dan]

Every institution would be paying their players, so I don't see how that would be an advantage for one school over another.  In fact, rather the opposite:  if I can go to Oregon and use their multi-million dollar practice facility, or I can go to Oregon State and get paid twice as much, seems like the problem resolves itself.

And as I already said: the scholarship should be included in the compensation package.  The lacrosse team probably isn't going to merit much compensation beyond the value of their scholarship.  The men's basketball team probably will.

I don't see the issue.

[Dave Gray]

If you begin paying any athletes with school funds directly you are going to have to pay all athletes

What?  Why would you have to pay all athletes?

[Phishfan]

^^^ You don't see the legal ramifications involved? Non-revenue sports also have mandatory practices. They attend the same institutions. Why would any court in the land rule that one person gets paid and another does not. We could even keep the discussion to just football. Why wouldn't a backup be looking for pay from the school? What if he steps in because of injury. Does the starter lose his pay? Does the backup gain that money?

I just don't see how a court would allow for the differentiation of paying only some athletes compensation. I've seen the word employee used several times (you were one I think) do you know any company that only pays some employees?