First real step to paying College Football players

[ABQCOWBOY]

The US is the only country that even has college athletics. Europe laughs at us for this, along with the whole sorority and fraternity nonsense.

The real answer (which I would hate) is to drop athletics in college altogether, and let clubs handle development like they do everywhere else. College is a place for higher learning, not a place for 3rd-grade educated morons to play football on Saturday and take made-up classes a slug could pass.

That's really where this heads IMO. I don't see how College Athletics can survive if they are forced to pay Athletes. The problem is that once you open this up, you can try and put certain limitations into it but they will inevitably get challenged and when that happens, I don't have confidence that the NCAA or College Athletics will be able to limit the scale of payment to Athletes. This, to me, is very dangerous.

If the numbers I posted earlier, in terms of revenue and the number of College Athletes annually, we are really only talking about 2400 bucks and change, per athlete. Even if you wanted to figure out a way to compensate them, that's a really small piece of the pie to work with. I mean, you are talking about a little over 200 bucks a month and this is before any of this revenue has to be paid out to cover any costs that may be associated. I mean, if those numbers are accurate, I don't really see any way for anybody to even do that under the current system and be profitable. The numbers don't work here.

 

[erod]

That's really where this heads IMO. I don't see how College Athletics can survive if they are forced to pay Athletes. The problem is that once you open this up, you can try and put certain limitations into it but they will inevitably get challenged and when that happens, I don't have confidence that the NCAA or College Athletics will be able to limit the scale of payment to Athletes. This, to me, is very dangerous.

If the numbers I posted earlier, in terms of revenue and the number of College Athletes annually, we are really only talking about 2400 bucks and change, per athlete. Even if you wanted to figure out a way to compensate them, that's a really small piece of the pie to work with. I mean, you are talking about a little over 200 bucks a month and this is before any of this revenue has to be paid out to cover any costs that may be associated. I mean, if those numbers are accurate, I don't really see any way for anybody to even do that under the current system and be profitable. The numbers don't work here.

Alabama can pay athletes. Oklahoma and Texas can pay athletes. So can a small few others. But most schools can't pay the football team, the men's and women's basketball team, plus volleyball, golf, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, wrestling, softball, baseball, diving, soccer, lacrosse......it's not viable.

A ton of universities would just drop sports altogether, or a school like UConn might choose to drop football and only have a men's and women's basketball team only as its entire athletic program.

Title IX already cost men soccer and baseball at many schools. Very few colleges carry those sports for men because they have to offset the 70+ football scholarships. Every college has women's soccer and softball though.

It's already screwed up and they're going to screw it up even further.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Alabama can pay athletes. Oklahoma and Texas can pay athletes. So can a small few others. But most schools can't pay the football team, the men's and women's basketball team, plus volleyball, golf, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, wrestling, softball, baseball, diving, soccer, lacrosse......it's not viable.

A ton of universities would just drop sports altogether, or a school like UConn might choose to drop football and only have a men's and women's basketball team only as its entire athletic program.

Title IX already cost men soccer and baseball at many schools. Very few colleges carry those sports for men because they have to offset the 70+ football scholarships. Every college has women's soccer and softball though.

It's already screwed up and they're going to screw it up even further.
.

Exactly, but more to the point, even the Bamas and SCs and UTs would eventually kill their programs because all of those schools, make money through Television. Without a credible Conference and a Championship, there is no draw for a National TV Market. Essentially, all Schools would have to give up sports programs. If it's not profitable, there is no reason for any of those Universities to continue to support any of the programs. This doesn't even touch on the potential conflict between the Faculty and the Sports Programs. Faculty costs are escalating and those costs continue to rise. They already fight for dollars. Eventually, Universities will have no choice but to cut sports programs if they become a cost center as opposed to a revenue center. It likely forces Universities down a more traditional education path. Never mind the future implications towards faculty salaries. Those likely take a hit as well. The NCAA and the sports market in general is far too big to go unnoticed. It will have a domino effect, I believe.

I agree, this makes a bad situation even worse IMO.

 

[uvaballa]

Alabama can pay athletes. Oklahoma and Texas can pay athletes. So can a small few others. But most schools can't pay the football team, the men's and women's basketball team, plus volleyball, golf, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, wrestling, softball, baseball, diving, soccer, lacrosse......it's not viable.

A ton of universities would just drop sports altogether, or a school like UConn might choose to drop football and only have a men's and women's basketball team only as its entire athletic program.

Title IX already cost men soccer and baseball at many schools. Very few colleges carry those sports for men because they have to offset the 70+ football scholarships. Every college has women's soccer and softball though.

It's already screwed up and they're going to screw it up even further.
.

Why should kids playing sports that are losing money get paid? Stop riding the coat tails of the popular athletes. Maybe those kids parents should pay for their school like most of kids.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why should kids playing sports that are losing money get paid? Stop riding the coat tails of the popular athletes. Maybe those kids parents should pay for their school like most of kids.

Maybe they should all pay their own way and lets just get rid of all the free rides. I mean, people who don't play sports do it that way. Maybe you are right. Maybe we should do away with all educational assistance. Maybe that's the way to go.

 

[jterrell]

Maybe they should all pay their own way and lets just get rid of all the free rides. I mean, people who don't play sports do it that way. Maybe you are right. Maybe we should do away with all educational assistance. Maybe that's the way to go.

Soon as they stop charging to attend games and stop paying coaches more than professors i am on board with that plan.

Wanna up revenue? Make the deal with EA for NCAA football and related games. Toss that in player coffers.

Easy enough to pay players based on scale of revenue like they do with professional CBAs.
No one should be asked to work for free past 18 years of age.
Someone has to pay for those people to survive.

A solid college football player that earns 2 letters but has zero NFL or CFL chance has risked and likely has lifelong bodily effects of playing.
I have both bad knees and two vertebrae that constantly scrape and should be fused together.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Soon as they stop charging to attend games and stop paying coaches more than professors i am on board with that plan.

Wanna up revenue? Make the deal with EA for NCAA football and related games. Toss that in player coffers.

Easy enough to pay players based on scale of revenue like they do with professional CBAs.
No one should be asked to work for free past 18 years of age.
Someone has to pay for those people to survive.

A solid college football player that earns 2 letters but has zero NFL or CFL chance has risked and likely has lifelong bodily effects of playing.
I have both bad knees and two vertebrae that constantly scrape and should be fused together.

This all sounds good but it won't work. You have to pay them all or not at all. Once it becomes unprofitable, what's the point? What University is going to continue to spend the money it costs if they aren't making the money? I don't see it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A solid college football player that earns 2 letters but has zero NFL or CFL chance has risked and likely has lifelong bodily effects of playing.
I have both bad knees and two vertebrae that constantly scrape and should be fused together.

Nobody forced us to play Football JT. We did that all on our own. I have lifelong health issues related to sports and other things as well. Nobody paid me or is even interested in trying to pay me. If we choose to play, that's on us. We could have taken up Tennis or Chess or any number of other, less risky, things.

Besides, I'm assuming you did get a degree out of the deal so it's not like you got nothing for your efforts. You did get an education, yes? I think that's worth something.

I don't believe this is a battle the players can win. That's just my opinion.

 

[jterrell]

This all sounds good but it won't work. You have to pay them all or not at all. Once it becomes unprofitable, what's the point? What University is going to continue to spend the money it costs if they aren't making the money? I don't see it.

The school benefits so insanely much from football and/or basketball that it really is beyond describing.
Football drives alumni donations, drives campus, swag sold, upgrades and so much else.
There is a reason virtually every P5 program is paying 5MILLION plus to it's coaching staff and elite steams pay well over 5 just to its head coach.

It is a gargantuan effect football has on the school overall and its revenue.
People against paying them write up nonsense about scholarship cost and blah blah blah that isn't actual out of pocket expenses
for the school and ignore so many forms of revenue they increase or generate entirely such as concession sales and swag sales on game days.

The money is there quite easily.

And no it will not have to be paying everyone.
They can easily write it up based upon % of revenue by conference or even the entire division.

People that don't want to do something look for excuses not to do it.

At some point guys could well stop going at all like basketball.
Go straight to an XFL or CFL for 1 or 2 years.
Colleges would be crushed financially.

 

[jterrell]

Nobody forced us to play Football JT. We did that all on our own. I have lifelong health issues related to sports and other things as well. Nobody paid me or is even interested in trying to pay me. If we choose to play, that's on us. We could have taken up Tennis or Chess or any number of other, less risky, things.

Besides, I'm assuming you did get a degree out of the deal so it's not like you got nothing for your efforts. You did get an education, yes? I think that's worth something.

I don't believe this is a battle the players can win. That's just my opinion.

Let me be clear, the players will 100% win. They already have in fact.
They get stipends now. Its just that those stipends will inevitably increase.

The NCAA literally quashed video games because they didn't wanna lose in court so they turned down massive revenue streams.

Whether you force someone to do something or not has very little overall impact legally in providing the tools and environment as well as direction to allow injuries to occur.
They are concurring under direction of their employees in facilities they own. Liability is a slam dunk.
Paying players is actually the smartest thing NCAA can do before a class action lawsuit hits them for abusive practices resulting in injuries such as CTE.
It'd kill the NCAA.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The school benefits so insanely much from football and/or basketball that it really is beyond describing.
Football drives alumni donations, drives campus, swag sold, upgrades and so much else.
There is a reason virtually every P5 program is paying 5MILLION plus to it's coaching staff and elite steams pay well over 5 just to its head coach.

It is a gargantuan effect football has on the school overall and its revenue.
People against paying them write up nonsense about scholarship cost and blah blah blah that isn't actual out of pocket expenses
for the school and ignore so many forms of revenue they increase or generate entirely such as concession sales and swag sales on game days.

The money is there quite easily.

And no it will not have to be paying everyone.
They can easily write it up based upon % of revenue by conference or even the entire division.

People that don't want to do something look for excuses not to do it.

At some point guys could well stop going at all like basketball.
Go straight to an XFL or CFL for 1 or 2 years.
Colleges would be crushed financially.

I posted financial information that was reported earlier in this thread. If you do the math, according to the audit that was published in 2017, the money is not there. I mean, if that information is accurate and the published numbers from the NCAA on College Athletes are accurate, then your statements can't be accurate. If you have info that shows something else, I'd be happy to look at it but according to the info published, the money is not there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Let me be clear, the players will 100% win. They already have in fact.
They get stipends now. Its just that those stipends will inevitably increase.

The NCAA literally quashed video games because they didn't wanna lose in court so they turned down massive revenue streams.

Whether you force someone to do something or not has very little overall impact legally in providing the tools and environment as well as direction to allow injuries to occur.
They are concurring under direction of their employees in facilities they own. Liability is a slam dunk.
Paying players is actually the smartest thing NCAA can do before a class action lawsuit hits them for abusive practices resulting in injuries such as CTE.
It'd kill the NCAA.

This is not about video games. The thread says that it's the "First Step". This is about paying college athletes. They will not win this IMO because even if they were to somehow win the battle, the entire process becomes less profitable and, according to the numbers, I don't see any way that you can both, pay the athletes any amount of money that makes sense and be profitable. According to the numbers, we are talking about a little over 200 bucks a month in total.

So no, paying players is not the smartest move if the numbers are accurate. I feel like you think that it is possible to just pay certain players. I don't see that. How are you going to prevent other NCAA athletes from bringing suit and if that happens, what do you see as a possible defense as to why you would only pay certain players? Also, keep in mind that this is not the NFL. There are no built in securities granted for the NCAA, like a league like the NFL enjoys. What happens if the NCAA gets sued and they end up having to pay all players? What happens to all sports then?

 

[jterrell]

The LSU locker room update and those tlike them all other the country laugh at the nonsense spilled in this thread.

College football players already eat better, have better rooms and yes have larger stipends than any other sport except backetball on select campuses.
This is not going to change because they drive the financial numbers for the entire athletic department.

All of this is only going one direction. Towards playing collegiate players a minimum wage type salary.
They can then charge them for tuition and room and board and all that out of that money.
And they can pull that salary if they are cut, suspended or other actions.
It is different and old men who run this stuff hate change but it will occur in due time.
Everything evolves and payign the players has been in place for a long, long time.
It started with under the table stuff, elevated to agents really paying guys based on future earnings and has grown into player stipends.
So we are actually well on the way from the first step.

 

[csirl]

I dont get why yoy have to pay all college athletes if you want to pay football players?

As already said on this thread, outside the USA, professional athletes are not developed via university programs.

However, there are colleges who run pro sports programs playing in pro leagues who pay their players - there are a few in soccer in Europe. They only pay their best soccer players, not all athletes.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The LSU locker room update and those tlike them all other the country laugh at the nonsense spilled in this thread.

College football players already eat better, have better rooms and yes have larger stipends than any other sport except backetball on select campuses.
This is not going to change because they drive the financial numbers for the entire athletic department.

All of this is only going one direction. Towards playing collegiate players a minimum wage type salary.
They can then charge them for tuition and room and board and all that out of that money.
And they can pull that salary if they are cut, suspended or other actions.
It is different and old men who run this stuff hate change but it will occur in due time.
Everything evolves and payign the players has been in place for a long, long time.
It started with under the table stuff, elevated to agents really paying guys based on future earnings and has grown into player stipends.
So we are actually well on the way from the first step.

This is completely wrong. The reason none of this gets any real light shinned on it is because it's in the hands of the NCAA. However, what we are talking about here is going outside of the NCAA. Basically, taking power away from that organization. Once this thing leaves that very comfortable space and goes into a court of law, which it will, you then start dealing with real life and everything will change. Football players will no longer be protected and neither will Football Programs. JT, I think you are wrong here. You are basically facilitating the downfall of the sport, though these actions, IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I dont get why yoy have to pay all college athletes if you want to pay football players?

As already said on this thread, outside the USA, professional athletes are not developed via university programs.

However, there are colleges who run pro sports programs playing in pro leagues who pay their players - there are a few in soccer in Europe. They only pay their best soccer players, not all athletes.

We are not Europe and people have rights in this Country. Why do you have to pay Women and not just mean? There are laws in this country that regulate things like this. Once you get rid of the NCAA, which is what is happening with this move, you are no longer protected. You only pay male athletes in certain sports and you will eventually end up with a discrimination suit on your hands that I don't think you can win.

 

[erod]

I dont get why yoy have to pay all college athletes if you want to pay football players?

As already said on this thread, outside the USA, professional athletes are not developed via university programs.

However, there are colleges who run pro sports programs playing in pro leagues who pay their players - there are a few in soccer in Europe. They only pay their best soccer players, not all athletes.

Title IX

 

[csirl]

We are not Europe and people have rights in this Country. Why do you have to pay Women and not just mean? There are laws in this country that regulate things like this. Once you get rid of the NCAA, which is what is happening with this move, you are no longer protected. You only pay male athletes in certain sports and you will eventually end up with a discrimination suit on your hands that I don't think you can win.

Equality and human rights are generally more prescribed/regulated in Europe than the United States - the EU in particular is very stringent on this sort of thing. So if it is possible in Europe, it will be in the U.S. Where you get into difficulties is where Government or college funding is not equally distributed - which is the problem in the NCAA. Those teams in Europe who are professional financially stand on their own two feet.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Equality and human rights are generally more prescribed/regulated in Europe than the United States - the EU in particular is very stringent on this sort of thing. So if it is possible in Europe, it will be in the U.S. Where you get into difficulties is where Government or college funding is not equally distributed - which is the problem in the NCAA. Those teams in Europe who are professional financially stand on their own two feet.

The issue here is that if you go down that path, then the NCAA is no longer in the mix. College athletics will go the way of the Studebaker. It then becomes a business. The rules are completely different and there are no more free rides. You have to be in accordance with the Laws of this Country and those laws say that you can not discriminate. I don't really think people have thought this through. They really haven't considered all the possible unintended consequences.

JMO

 

[csirl]

The issue here is that if you go down that path, then the NCAA is no longer in the mix. College athletics will go the way of the Studebaker. It then becomes a business. The rules are completely different and there are no more free rides. You have to be in accordance with the Laws of this Country and those laws say that you can not discriminate. I don't really think people have thought this through. They really haven't considered all the possible unintended consequences.

JMO

You"re 100% correct. I think college football as we know it today would die.

My own opinion is that the player pathway for professional football should follow the normal route that professional sport has worldwide - players work their way up through the ranks at underage level and then through professional academies or minor leagues. There is no logical link between university academics and sporting achievement.

I also think the sport would be stronger if it wasnt tied to the US education system because:

1. The college route rules out a percentage if athletes.

2. The strict links to the education system has killed off participation in football at adult level. Most football players stop playing altogether when they are finished high school, college etc.