Dez responds to Tim Tebow

Anyone else torn on this matter?

dogunwo said:

You missed his point entirely it seems

Click to expand...

So help me out.

kskboys said:

Anyone else torn on this matter?

Click to expand...

this issue is so deep... its not just as simple as play ball? here's a check ...

I would really need to know where all the money that is being made right now goes... Does the ncaa spend it on programs and such across the spectrum of college athletics? or do they hoard it all, paying themselves and friends exorbitant contracts and waste money etc on expensive travel accommodations and/or take lavish personal vacations on the dime of college athletes?

If you are going to change, and start paying players these are a few thoughts...

How much do the athletes get? If you are paying them, do they also get a free ride scholarship? Or does the NCAA not pay them, but lets players now actively seek employment (which they cannot do right now... on an athletic scholarship? you cant get a job) and/or endorsement deals? The pay for play in mens basketball shows that these kids are snagging as much as 200k from the sneaker companies to play at certain schools... Are scholarhips offset by the amount of money a college player can earn? Do the players realize, that unlike a scholarship, taking payments from a job/endorsement deal has tax ramifications... that if you get 50k, you dont get to keep all that 50k...

college athletics make a lot of money... billions, if the numbers we hear bandied about are true... but, its basically two sports that make the lions share of that... Mens Football and Mens Basketball... There is a little buzz about womens ncaa basketball... but overall? yeah not much more besides football and basketball ..

If the rules of the game are changed, who gets paid? all athletes? Do the football/basketball rights fees get shared equally across the board? I mean, Megan Rapinhoe wants womens soccer pay to be equal to mens soccer, despite it earning a tenth of what the mens program brings in... why wouldn't UNLV's Susie Splitlicker want the same thing for her Field Hockey team if college athletes are getting paid? Title IX and all that... do all these guys and gals now need agents? or is it like the nfl rookie contract slots?

and lets not even get into the specter of nefarious characters looking to exploit the athletes ... showing up with a bag of cash under the guise of legitimate dealings can open a lot of doors... yes that sounds stupid but these shadowy gambling figures do exist, so who do colleges/universities get to police where the money comes from...

There are a myriad of other questions as well, some which will only arise after you start going down the particular gopher hole of paying players...

JD_KaPow said:

What does "soon enough" mean? If they can make money now, why aren't they allowed to? And what happens if they have a career-ending injury? Why should anybody but the market decide what's "soon enough?" Also, what do you mean by "doesn't address the vast majority of athletes?" What is there to address with them? If they can make money from endorsements, they can, and if they can't, they can't.This makes zero sense. It's a much worse problem when players cannot be paid legally; the incentive to take money under the table is much greater when you can't get paid in an aboveboard way. The point shaving scandal you mentioned happened under the current system.I'm not sure what you're arguing here. College is the only path to the NFL today (how many players in the NFL didn't play college ball?). That doesn't mean it has to be: there could be other systems, there just don't happen to be. But any kid with NFL ambitions knows he has to go play in college.

Click to expand...

1. You are continually dismissing the value of the education they are getting. A free education is their pay. If an athlete doesn’t take advantage then that’s their fault because chances are they aren’t going pro.
2. Vast majority of athletes aren’t good enough to get endorsements. If this is all about getting athletes more spending money or a piece of the pie why should only the few stars benefit? Makes no sense to put a system of pay in for the 1% of star athletes that a company would endorse, If you want a universal revenue sharing across all sports I’m on board, Allowing a few to benefit while the many get nothing doesn’t make sense,
3. Yes point shaving did occur under the current system and it’s not a real stretch to see it becoming a rampant problem under an endorsement system. Find a kid who is a starter but not likely going pro. Give the player an endorsement in exchange for influence over a game, If someone had offered me a 10k endorsement in college in exchange for missing a block here and there to keep a game close I might have to miss a block or two. Now make the same offer to a poor kid and the problems become obvious.
4. College isn’t the only path, I pointed out that several pro leagues allow 18 year olds. Just because it’s not a common path doesn’t mean it’s not possible to get there another way. And why are you focusing on the kids that can go pro, that represents .1% of college football players even less across all sports? That’s my main disagreement with your argument, you are continuously focusing on the high profile athletes that may get an endorsement deal and the 99.9% get nothing,

And regarding the capitalism argument, do you work in the private sector. Does your company make money off you? Should your company be forced to revenue share with you? I don’t think so.

Pape said:

Or does the NCAA not pay them, but lets players now actively seek employment (which they cannot do right now... on an athletic scholarship? you cant get a job) and/or endorsement deals?

Click to expand...

Not true. Scholarship athletes can work. They changed the rule in 07 to allow athletes to work in the athletic department part time in season. Out of season they can seek employment where they want but the job needs to be cleared with the university and NCAA.

Another thing that needs to be kept in mind. The majority of universities lose money on sports. Athletic departments are subsidized from the general fund. So while Duke basketball may be a cash cow the rest of the programs are losers financially. At big time schools one team may carry the whole department but that’s the exception.

Pola_pe_a said:

Not true. Scholarship athletes can work. They changed the rule in 07 to allow athletes to work in the athletic department part time in season. Out of season they can seek employment where they want but the job needs to be cleared with the university and NCAA.

Click to expand...

You are splitting hairs... Scholarship athletes cant walk down the street and get a job at McDonald's during the school year... the good ones cant go to a card convention and sell autographs, etc... but they can "work" in the athletic department... that's not viable employment...

Hoofbite said:

So help me out.

Click to expand...

He wasn't saying that disenfranchised students can't succeed. He saying that its easy for Tim Tebow to say "just play for the love of the game" and needing money is "selfish", when you don't have problems such as basic needs being met, or your family continuing to struggle while you're at school. Players often feel guilty about being ok at school, but their family is struggling back home. Do you think Laremy Tunsil was texting an assistant coach to help his mom pay the light bill because he was being selfish and greedy while at Ole Miss? Go to any college campus and check out what a lot of athletes are wearing everyday to class and on the weekends. Team gear. Why? Because the school can just give them that stuff, but can't give them money for their own clothes and essentials. A lot of my athlete friends while at Clemson had never even been to the dentist before the school fixed their teeth.

Your characterization of "God like" abilities is also exaggerated as well. Most student athletes
do not have the ability or talent to just realize it'll be ok and wait to turn pro to fix problems.

Yes, there are some students who would be looking to get rich, Johnny Manziel comes to mind. There are much more athletes who feel like "hey coach, you preach family all time, well understand me and family have problems that aren't solved by me getting the play on Saturday's.

I think most people are torn on the subject. It is difficult to be full on for either side. The current system is broken, but fixing it is a challenge. These are children at the time they agree to play college sports. You think you know a lot about the world at 18, but you don't know squat. The recruiters and the coaches will lie and the players will fall for it. I have no idea what the solutions are and what the full range of ramifications will end up being. Try something. Whatever is going to happen probably needs to happen. Staying with the status quo doesn't seem like the best option.

I also hope they address injuries and medical support and expenses.

https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...chools-abandon-their-injured-athletes/275407/

https://www.apnews.com/050b0692e97e7cd064274d1836ac60a3

Pola_pe_a said:

I know the kids are getting used and I wouldn’t have a problem with some of the money being generated being dispersed to the student athletes but the benefit shouldn’t go to the couple stars. I guess that’s my point.

What is annoying is when people (not saying you) dismiss the value of a free education.

Click to expand...

Information is free in general, education is available to everyone for free. On campus university education is a far overstated benefit and an outsized mismatch in value

Pola_pe_a said:

1. You are continually dismissing the value of the education they are getting. A free education is their pay. If an athlete doesn’t take advantage then that’s their fault because chances are they aren’t going pro.
2. Vast majority of athletes aren’t good enough to get endorsements. If this is all about getting athletes more spending money or a piece of the pie why should only the few stars benefit? Makes no sense to put a system of pay in for the 1% of star athletes that a company would endorse, If you want a universal revenue sharing across all sports I’m on board, Allowing a few to benefit while the many get nothing doesn’t make sense,
3. Yes point shaving did occur under the current system and it’s not a real stretch to see it becoming a rampant problem under an endorsement system. Find a kid who is a starter but not likely going pro. Give the player an endorsement in exchange for influence over a game, If someone had offered me a 10k endorsement in college in exchange for missing a block here and there to keep a game close I might have to miss a block or two. Now make the same offer to a poor kid and the problems become obvious.
4. College isn’t the only path, I pointed out that several pro leagues allow 18 year olds. Just because it’s not a common path doesn’t mean it’s not possible to get there another way. And why are you focusing on the kids that can go pro, that represents .1% of college football players even less across all sports? That’s my main disagreement with your argument, you are continuously focusing on the high profile athletes that may get an endorsement deal and the 99.9% get nothing,

And regarding the capitalism argument, do you work in the private sector. Does your company make money off you? Should your company be forced to revenue share with you? I don’t think so.

Click to expand...

1. Yes, I dismiss the value of the education they are getting. If that's what they want, great. But why should that be their only choice? If they want to be paid via scholarship, great. But if they'd rather get money, why shouldn't they be able to negotiate that? Also, the players, the teams and the colleges often treat the "education" piece as a joke, a hoop they have to jump through so they can be part of the real business of making money for the school via football.
2. I don't understand the issue here. People should get paid for their labor according to the demand for that labor. It's pretty simple. What does it matter that some guys will get paid a lot, some guys a little and some not at all? That's how it works in every other part of our society. "Allowing a few to benefit while the many get nothing" is basic capitalism; not sure why you think it doesn't make sense. Tom Cruise makes millions to make a movie; I get nothing to make a movie because nobody wants to watch me on screen. How is this different?
3. Again, this makes zero sense. Nike isn't paying players in exchange for point-shaving; they're paying them to wear their stuff. Anyone paying for point-shaving is doing so illegally and secretly, and players are vulnerable to that when they can't get money legally, as in the current system. I have no idea why you think there would be more risk of this behavior if players got paid. It makes no sense.
4. College is the only path for all practical purposes, and everybody knows it. And I don't understand your argument about high-profile vs. the other players. So the high-profile ones get paid and the others get scholarships (or walk on) just as they do now, but nothing else. You keep saying that's a problem, but I don't understand what the problem is supposed to be, or how "all players get nothing" is a more desirable situation.

To your final point, yes, I work in the private sector. Yes, my company makes money off of me. They also pay me in actual dollars, that I can spend as I see fit. That's not revenue sharing, that's paying your employees. I mean, they can't say, "we'll pay you in chits that you can use only for taking classes at the local school." They could try that, but then I'm free to go to another company in the same field and see if I can get a better deal. They certainly aren't allowed to collude with the other companies in their field and collectively refuse to pay their employees. That's really illegal. It should be illegal for the NCAA as well.

Most people are forced to make their way in this world without the benefit of a free education.

Sounds to me like "athletic privilege".

JD_KaPow said:

1. Yes, I dismiss the value of the education they are getting. If that's what they want, great. But why should that be their only choice? If they want to be paid via scholarship, great. But if they'd rather get money, why shouldn't they be able to negotiate that? Also, the players, the teams and the colleges often treat the "education" piece as a joke, a hoop they have to jump through so they can be part of the real business of making money for the school via football.
2. I don't understand the issue here. People should get paid for their labor according to the demand for that labor. It's pretty simple. What does it matter that some guys will get paid a lot, some guys a little and some not at all? That's how it works in every other part of our society. "Allowing a few to benefit while the many get nothing" is basic capitalism; not sure why you think it doesn't make sense. Tom Cruise makes millions to make a movie; I get nothing to make a movie because nobody wants to watch me on screen. How is this different?
3. Again, this makes zero sense. Nike isn't paying players in exchange for point-shaving; they're paying them to wear their stuff. Anyone paying for point-shaving is doing so illegally and secretly, and players are vulnerable to that when they can't get money legally, as in the current system. I have no idea why you think there would be more risk of this behavior if players got paid. It makes no sense.
4. College is the only path for all practical purposes, and everybody knows it. And I don't understand your argument about high-profile vs. the other players. So the high-profile ones get paid and the others get scholarships (or walk on) just as they do now, but nothing else. You keep saying that's a problem, but I don't understand what the problem is supposed to be, or how "all players get nothing" is a more desirable situation.

To your final point, yes, I work in the private sector. Yes, my company makes money off of me. They also pay me in actual dollars, that I can spend as I see fit. That's not revenue sharing, that's paying your employees. I mean, they can't say, "we'll pay you in chits that you can use only for taking classes at the local school." They could try that, but then I'm free to go to another company in the same field and see if I can get a better deal. They certainly aren't allowed to collude with the other companies in their field and collectively refuse to pay their employees. That's really illegal. It should be illegal for the NCAA as well.

Click to expand...

Funny thing, I agree w/ both you on many many points.

System needs changing. How to go about it is monumentally difficult.