menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Trevor Lawrence should sit out until 2021
Page: 3 of 4
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/11/2019 10:59 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
I don't understand why you'd have to do that. In fact, I don't think you'd have to do that. Honestly, you'd barely have to change anything at all. ...

Ah, I see. You just want a partial solution. That could work. I thought you wanted to allow them to get more benefits from the University. If the University had to "pay" them more, they'd have to either increase their budget, which I don't see as possible, or decrease their "pay" to someone else.

Colleges will never let college football become divorced from colleges....

Never is a long time. I agree that in the short run, it won't happen.

Universities can admit whoever they want. Football's not a necessary part of that equation.

Yes, they could, and they could also give them full scholarships, if they wanted to. However:
1. Some people who come to college for football don't place a lot of value on the education at the time. Later, I think, they come to appreciate it more.
2. Many people who come on football scholarships would never think to apply if football wasn't part of the equation
3. If they started giving full scholarships to people with very low ACT scores, and poor grades in high school, which some football players have, don't you think that some more qualified people who were declined would complain?
4. Even if they were admitted, do you think they would succeed without the support system that they get from football?
I ain’t coming here to play no school, or whatever the quote was plays well here.
mail
OhioCatFan
1/11/2019 11:17 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I don't understand why you'd have to do that. In fact, I don't think you'd have to do that. Honestly, you'd barely have to change anything at all. ...

Ah, I see. You just want a partial solution. That could work. I thought you wanted to allow them to get more benefits from the University. If the University had to "pay" them more, they'd have to either increase their budget, which I don't see as possible, or decrease their "pay" to someone else.

Colleges will never let college football become divorced from colleges....

Never is a long time. I agree that in the short run, it won't happen.

Universities can admit whoever they want. Football's not a necessary part of that equation.

Yes, they could, and they could also give them full scholarships, if they wanted to. However:
1. Some people who come to college for football don't place a lot of value on the education at the time. Later, I think, they come to appreciate it more.
2. Many people who come on football scholarships would never think to apply if football wasn't part of the equation
3. If they started giving full scholarships to people with very low ACT scores, and poor grades in high school, which some football players have, don't you think that some more qualified people who were declined would complain?
4. Even if they were admitted, do you think they would succeed without the support system that they get from football?
I ain’t coming here to play no school, or whatever the quote was plays well here.
+1 Exactly the point. They're here primarily "to play school," which their scholarships pay for. That they play on the gridiron on Saturday (or Tuesday or Wednesday in the MAC) is a "value added." It may be what drew them to the university, and it may in a few cases be their livelihood in the future, but it's not why they are playing in Peden (or any other stadium). As the NCAA PSA says, the vast majority will make a livelihood in something else other than their sport once they graduate. It is for that "vast majority" that the system is setup. The one percenters (well, maybe two or three percent) who will go to the "next level" will have ample time to make their millions. [And, the smaller percent of the one percenters who might get injured is really nothing that should be factored into the equation for everyone else, IMHO. ]
Last Edited: 1/11/2019 11:20:34 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/12/2019 10:40 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
It's definitely interesting, but ultimately not all that surprising.

The whole "Democrats are socialists" thing is really just right wing media bubble hysteria with little rooting in truth. Somehow people on the right think that's true and simultaneously thought Hillary Clinton was in Goldman Sachs' back pocket. Those two things aren't congruent.

Also, this is really a conversation about how labor is compensated, and the left has always been the party of labor, even if labor doesn't always realize it. I don't think it's all that surprising that folks on the left think people should be compensated for their work.

And finally, modern conservatism isn't really rooted in any of the ideals traditionally associated with the GOP. It is, by and large, a party defined mainly by fear. And over the last decade or so, its fears have become largely cultural. In practice, this tends to result in conservatives supporting entrenched power structures because they fear change. So it's not surprising to me that they support the NCAA over NCAA athletes despite the obvious ideological inconsistencies in doing so. Supporting the athletes would lead to change. Many, many people on both sides of the spectrum are scared if change. And it is, according to polling data, one of the defining characteristics of modern conservatives.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.
Scholarships are already non-renewable, there is NO such thing as a 4 year scholarship in athletics, each and every one is a 1 year renewable agreement.

The purely financial end would also help repress minority populations by not providing a path to an education and all the opportunities that go with that. For what a chance to make maybe a few years of 40k that would be blown at that age and would only last as income for 3-4 years.

Not true about the 1 year scholarship. More schools are doing it every year. Look it up.
mail
person
giacomo
1/12/2019 11:08 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I don't understand why you'd have to do that. In fact, I don't think you'd have to do that. Honestly, you'd barely have to change anything at all. ...

Ah, I see. You just want a partial solution. That could work. I thought you wanted to allow them to get more benefits from the University. If the University had to "pay" them more, they'd have to either increase their budget, which I don't see as possible, or decrease their "pay" to someone else.

Colleges will never let college football become divorced from colleges....

Never is a long time. I agree that in the short run, it won't happen.

Universities can admit whoever they want. Football's not a necessary part of that equation.

Yes, they could, and they could also give them full scholarships, if they wanted to. However:
1. Some people who come to college for football don't place a lot of value on the education at the time. Later, I think, they come to appreciate it more.
2. Many people who come on football scholarships would never think to apply if football wasn't part of the equation
3. If they started giving full scholarships to people with very low ACT scores, and poor grades in high school, which some football players have, don't you think that some more qualified people who were declined would complain?
4. Even if they were admitted, do you think they would succeed without the support system that they get from football?
I ain’t coming here to play no school, or whatever the quote was plays well here.
+1 Exactly the point. They're here primarily "to play school," which their scholarships pay for. That they play on the gridiron on Saturday (or Tuesday or Wednesday in the MAC) is a "value added." It may be what drew them to the university, and it may in a few cases be their livelihood in the future, but it's not why they are playing in Peden (or any other stadium). As the NCAA PSA says, the vast majority will make a livelihood in something else other than their sport once they graduate. It is for that "vast majority" that the system is setup. The one percenters (well, maybe two or three percent) who will go to the "next level" will have ample time to make their millions. [And, the smaller percent of the one percenters who might get injured is really nothing that should be factored into the equation for everyone else, IMHO. ]
This is a good point and I agree up to the idea that if you’re “playing school” and you’re like a business major who is on the volleyball team. The difference is the volleyball coach is making peanuts, and the football coach is making millions. Pay the coaches like professors and the model works. Use the cash to subsidize university expenses and maybe tuition doesn’t rise as fast.
Last Edited: 1/12/2019 11:10:12 AM by giacomo
mail
person
L.C.
1/12/2019 12:20 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
This is a good point and I agree up to the idea that if you’re “playing school” and you’re like a business major who is on the volleyball team. The difference is the volleyball coach is making peanuts, and the football coach is making millions. Pay the coaches like professors and the model works. Use the cash to subsidize university expenses and maybe tuition doesn’t rise as fast.

I agree with you that coaching salaries have gotten ridiculous, however you can see the mentality that leads to that everywhere. The following beliefs are common:
1. The determining factor in terms of whether a program fails or wins championships is the head coach
2. The offensive coordinator and his play calling are critical to the success of the team, and to winning games
3. If you aren't winning championships, there is no reason to play

I'm not going to debate the merits of those three opinions, however, if people believe them, it is inevitable that coaching salaries will skyrocket to the maximum that can be afforded, for both the head coach and the offensive coordinator.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/12/2019 4:57 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
It's definitely interesting, but ultimately not all that surprising.

The whole "Democrats are socialists" thing is really just right wing media bubble hysteria with little rooting in truth. Somehow people on the right think that's true and simultaneously thought Hillary Clinton was in Goldman Sachs' back pocket. Those two things aren't congruent.

Also, this is really a conversation about how labor is compensated, and the left has always been the party of labor, even if labor doesn't always realize it. I don't think it's all that surprising that folks on the left think people should be compensated for their work.

And finally, modern conservatism isn't really rooted in any of the ideals traditionally associated with the GOP. It is, by and large, a party defined mainly by fear. And over the last decade or so, its fears have become largely cultural. In practice, this tends to result in conservatives supporting entrenched power structures because they fear change. So it's not surprising to me that they support the NCAA over NCAA athletes despite the obvious ideological inconsistencies in doing so. Supporting the athletes would lead to change. Many, many people on both sides of the spectrum are scared if change. And it is, according to polling data, one of the defining characteristics of modern conservatives.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.
Scholarships are already non-renewable, there is NO such thing as a 4 year scholarship in athletics, each and every one is a 1 year renewable agreement.

The purely financial end would also help repress minority populations by not providing a path to an education and all the opportunities that go with that. For what a chance to make maybe a few years of 40k that would be blown at that age and would only last as income for 3-4 years.

Not true about the 1 year scholarship. More schools are doing it every year. Look it up.
A few of the big boys re using this, it’s a new option, but MAC schools and the rest of the G5 can not afford this, the 1 year renewable is still in use 98% of the time. OHIO has yet to give that 4 year promisary note.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/13/2019 11:35 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
It's definitely interesting, but ultimately not all that surprising.

The whole "Democrats are socialists" thing is really just right wing media bubble hysteria with little rooting in truth. Somehow people on the right think that's true and simultaneously thought Hillary Clinton was in Goldman Sachs' back pocket. Those two things aren't congruent.

Also, this is really a conversation about how labor is compensated, and the left has always been the party of labor, even if labor doesn't always realize it. I don't think it's all that surprising that folks on the left think people should be compensated for their work.

And finally, modern conservatism isn't really rooted in any of the ideals traditionally associated with the GOP. It is, by and large, a party defined mainly by fear. And over the last decade or so, its fears have become largely cultural. In practice, this tends to result in conservatives supporting entrenched power structures because they fear change. So it's not surprising to me that they support the NCAA over NCAA athletes despite the obvious ideological inconsistencies in doing so. Supporting the athletes would lead to change. Many, many people on both sides of the spectrum are scared if change. And it is, according to polling data, one of the defining characteristics of modern conservatives.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.
Scholarships are already non-renewable, there is NO such thing as a 4 year scholarship in athletics, each and every one is a 1 year renewable agreement.

The purely financial end would also help repress minority populations by not providing a path to an education and all the opportunities that go with that. For what a chance to make maybe a few years of 40k that would be blown at that age and would only last as income for 3-4 years.

Not true about the 1 year scholarship. More schools are doing it every year. Look it up.
A few of the big boys re using this, it’s a new option, but MAC schools and the rest of the G5 can not afford this, the 1 year renewable is still in use 98% of the time. OHIO has yet to give that 4 year promisary note.

We seem to keep mixing up the issue with the big boys and the majority of schools that lose money playing football. If we want to keep talking just about the G-5, most of the above thread doesn’t relate.
Last Edited: 1/13/2019 11:41:31 AM by colobobcat66
mail
OhioCatFan
1/13/2019 5:44 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
It's definitely interesting, but ultimately not all that surprising.

The whole "Democrats are socialists" thing is really just right wing media bubble hysteria with little rooting in truth. Somehow people on the right think that's true and simultaneously thought Hillary Clinton was in Goldman Sachs' back pocket. Those two things aren't congruent.

Also, this is really a conversation about how labor is compensated, and the left has always been the party of labor, even if labor doesn't always realize it. I don't think it's all that surprising that folks on the left think people should be compensated for their work.

And finally, modern conservatism isn't really rooted in any of the ideals traditionally associated with the GOP. It is, by and large, a party defined mainly by fear. And over the last decade or so, its fears have become largely cultural. In practice, this tends to result in conservatives supporting entrenched power structures because they fear change. So it's not surprising to me that they support the NCAA over NCAA athletes despite the obvious ideological inconsistencies in doing so. Supporting the athletes would lead to change. Many, many people on both sides of the spectrum are scared if change. And it is, according to polling data, one of the defining characteristics of modern conservatives.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.
Scholarships are already non-renewable, there is NO such thing as a 4 year scholarship in athletics, each and every one is a 1 year renewable agreement.

The purely financial end would also help repress minority populations by not providing a path to an education and all the opportunities that go with that. For what a chance to make maybe a few years of 40k that would be blown at that age and would only last as income for 3-4 years.

Not true about the 1 year scholarship. More schools are doing it every year. Look it up.
A few of the big boys re using this, it’s a new option, but MAC schools and the rest of the G5 can not afford this, the 1 year renewable is still in use 98% of the time. OHIO has yet to give that 4 year promisary note.

We seem to keep mixing up the issue with the big boys and the majority of schools that lose money playing football. If we want to keep talking just about the G-5, most of the above thread doesn’t relate.
What complicates the issue is that the majority of the "big boys" lose money too. They bring in a lot more than the G5, but they spend a lot more to try to keep up with the "elite boys," which consists of maybe a half dozen or less schools.
Last Edited: 1/13/2019 5:45:32 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/14/2019 7:20 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
It's definitely interesting, but ultimately not all that surprising.

The whole "Democrats are socialists" thing is really just right wing media bubble hysteria with little rooting in truth. Somehow people on the right think that's true and simultaneously thought Hillary Clinton was in Goldman Sachs' back pocket. Those two things aren't congruent.

Also, this is really a conversation about how labor is compensated, and the left has always been the party of labor, even if labor doesn't always realize it. I don't think it's all that surprising that folks on the left think people should be compensated for their work.

And finally, modern conservatism isn't really rooted in any of the ideals traditionally associated with the GOP. It is, by and large, a party defined mainly by fear. And over the last decade or so, its fears have become largely cultural. In practice, this tends to result in conservatives supporting entrenched power structures because they fear change. So it's not surprising to me that they support the NCAA over NCAA athletes despite the obvious ideological inconsistencies in doing so. Supporting the athletes would lead to change. Many, many people on both sides of the spectrum are scared if change. And it is, according to polling data, one of the defining characteristics of modern conservatives.

Where it gets interesting is that both sides want to have their cake and eat it, too. For example, if you are going to open up the high end, and let the better athletes be compensated more, to balance things, you also need to open the low end, and let the worse athletes be compensated less. Thus, if you wanted to create an entirely new, free market system to replace the current one, you would eliminate the requirement that people get full scholarships, and also make them non-renewable, and subject to revocation if they arrive on campus injured. Then you'd have a whole range of free market compensation. The stars could get a scholarship, plus endorsements, plus additional benefits, and the backups might get 1/3 of a scholarship, and no benefits. Would that be a system you'd like better?

In the end, if "college football" ends up divorced from colleges, and ends up as a farm league for the NFL, that's probably about what you'd get. Everyone would get at least minimum wage. Most players would probably make about $25-30,000, so about half to a third what they get now, but they would get it in cash (and it would be taxable), not in terms of a deferred benefit (i.e. an education). The stars would make closer to the NFL minimum, and leave once they are good enough to actually make the NFL.
Scholarships are already non-renewable, there is NO such thing as a 4 year scholarship in athletics, each and every one is a 1 year renewable agreement.

The purely financial end would also help repress minority populations by not providing a path to an education and all the opportunities that go with that. For what a chance to make maybe a few years of 40k that would be blown at that age and would only last as income for 3-4 years.

Not true about the 1 year scholarship. More schools are doing it every year. Look it up.
A few of the big boys re using this, it’s a new option, but MAC schools and the rest of the G5 can not afford this, the 1 year renewable is still in use 98% of the time. OHIO has yet to give that 4 year promisary note.

We seem to keep mixing up the issue with the big boys and the majority of schools that lose money playing football. If we want to keep talking just about the G-5, most of the above thread doesn’t relate.
What complicates the issue is that the majority of the "big boys" lose money too. They bring in a lot more than the G5, but they spend a lot more to try to keep up with the "elite boys," which consists of maybe a half dozen or less schools.

Forbes plublished an article in September, 2018 that showed 25 teams making more than $31,000,000 profit per year for football. We need to start rethinking our analysis of football teams losing money. Times have changed for the big boys.
Last Edited: 1/14/2019 7:20:52 PM by colobobcat66
mail
person
catfan28
1/14/2019 9:25 PM
It doesn't matter how much they make off of football - you have to look at the athletic department as a whole. You may make millions off of football, but most schools lose that amount and then some on their other sport offerings.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/14/2019 10:35 PM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
It doesn't matter how much they make off of football - you have to look at the athletic department as a whole. You may make millions off of football, but most schools lose that amount and then some on their other sport offerings.
Again, the best I can tell from the multiple sources is that about 25 programs make money overall including all sports. There’s just a lot of money available for the top programs. That doesn’t include us or other G-5 schools. The divide is increasing in almost an exponential way. Literally as in most things the rich are getting richer.
mail
person
catfan28
1/15/2019 8:24 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Again, the best I can tell from the multiple sources is that about 25 programs make money overall including all sports. There’s just a lot of money available for the top programs. That doesn’t include us or other G-5 schools. The divide is increasing in almost an exponential way. Literally as in most things the rich are getting richer.
That's not surprising. Some of those are barely breaking even - but it's about what I'd expect. Nevertheless, there are about 1,320 schools playing college sports at the D1, D2, D3 or NAIA level. If 25 make money, that means 98% are losing money...and most of those are losing a ton!
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/15/2019 12:55 PM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
Again, the best I can tell from the multiple sources is that about 25 programs make money overall including all sports. There’s just a lot of money available for the top programs. That doesn’t include us or other G-5 schools. The divide is increasing in almost an exponential way. Literally as in most things the rich are getting richer.
That's not surprising. Some of those are barely breaking even - but it's about what I'd expect. Nevertheless, there are about 1,320 schools playing college sports at the D1, D2, D3 or NAIA level. If 25 make money, that means 98% are losing money...and most of those are losing a ton!
So how does paying the players to play for a losing business make any sense at all. Nearly everybody will just lose more money.
mail
person
catfan28
1/15/2019 1:20 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
So how does paying the players to play for a losing business make any sense at all. Nearly everybody will just lose more money.
Bingo. Makes absolutely no sense to me either. It's like Kmart deciding to give its employees all a 20% raise. A completely irrational decision when you're hemorrhaging money.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/15/2019 1:27 PM
Who in this thread is advocating that the schools pay players? Sort of seems like you're arguing against nobody here.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/15/2019 3:09 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Who in this thread is advocating that the schools pay players? Sort of seems like you're arguing against nobody here.
Okay so you’re saying we’re just talking about endorsements and outside money, if that’s true, I stand corrected, but I just not seeing it.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/15/2019 4:49 PM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Who in this thread is advocating that the schools pay players? Sort of seems like you're arguing against nobody here.
Okay so you’re saying we’re just talking about endorsements and outside money, if that’s true, I stand corrected, but I just not seeing it.
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
mail
person
catfan28
1/15/2019 7:40 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
1/16/2019 6:09 AM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
Last Edited: 1/16/2019 6:11:48 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/16/2019 7:05 AM
Paying college athletes seems to be a major topic every couple of years.

The last time I remember was when a football team was talking about forming some type of union.

As was pointed out by several sports attorneys at that time,trying to pay student athletes opens up a Pandora's Box.

A few things I remember from the last time:

1.Most conversations center on paying men's football and basketball players.
Under Title IX, you'd have to pay all D1 athletes,in all sports.

2.If a University is paying players,they become employees.
Now you have to deal with unions,benefits,same as any other employee.

3.If athletes do get paid,it is quite possible that tuition,room board etc. could be considered "taxable income".

Endorsement contracts,rights to using a player's images etc.,that fall outside
of the school may be workable.
I just don't see schools wading into the morass of paying athletes.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/16/2019 8:35 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
All of those things are undoubtedly true.

I still very firmly believe it's the right thing to do and that competitive balance is far less important than giving people the right to earn money off of their talents. I think allowing endorsements may well lead to college athletics being less entertaining. My entertainment isn't (nor should it be) one of the top considerations here.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/16/2019 9:45 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
All of those things are undoubtedly true.

I still very firmly believe it's the right thing to do and that competitive balance is far less important than giving people the right to earn money off of their talents. I think allowing endorsements may well lead to college athletics being less entertaining. My entertainment isn't (nor should it be) one of the top considerations here.

All players receive “money” for their talents, it’s called full cost of attending a university. Some may deserve much more than that, some may not.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/16/2019 10:32 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
All of those things are undoubtedly true.

I still very firmly believe it's the right thing to do and that competitive balance is far less important than giving people the right to earn money off of their talents. I think allowing endorsements may well lead to college athletics being less entertaining. My entertainment isn't (nor should it be) one of the top considerations here.

All players receive “money” for their talents, it’s called full cost of attending a university. Some may deserve much more than that, some may not.
Exactly. Which is why it seems like a perfectly reasonable common sense solution to not restrict their ability to earn much more than that when the opportunity is available to do so.
mail
person
colobobcat66
1/16/2019 10:45 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
All of those things are undoubtedly true.

I still very firmly believe it's the right thing to do and that competitive balance is far less important than giving people the right to earn money off of their talents. I think allowing endorsements may well lead to college athletics being less entertaining. My entertainment isn't (nor should it be) one of the top considerations here.

All players receive “money” for their talents, it’s called full cost of attending a university. Some may deserve much more than that, some may not.
Exactly. Which is why it seems like a perfectly reasonable common sense solution to not restrict their ability to earn much more than that when the opportunity is available to do so.
Then have somebody offer a league for players who think they deserve more. They’ve tried that and it doesn’t make money.
See the above arguments in this thread for why it doesn’t make it a common sense solution.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
1/16/2019 11:00 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm the only person here advocating for players to be better compensated, and the only thing I've suggested in relaxing restrictions on endorsements/outside compensation.
That may be true here. But, it's worth noting that there are a lot of voices in the public sphere that do advocate paying players. Given the choice between the two, I'm certainly much more in the endorsement camp.

That said, my primary concern will always be to create more competitive balance - not less of it.
So, we allow endorsements, then how many scholarships will OSU, Michigan, Alabama get? 85 scholarships, 25 sponsorships from car dealerships at $50k a year? Limited Brands sponsorship of 20players at 30k, Steve’s Lawn Care with 15 endorsements at 30k, while OHIO will have Larry’s Dog House’s “Weenie Wednesday Warrior” at $50 a month. We’ve been down this road folks! There is a reason these things were banned! Because the big boys and select others doled out $1,000’s upon $1,000’s to get and keep players! And guess what, bad then there was no parity, and there is a reason for that.

This would be anti-competitive balance, which I believe Catfan knows, I probably quoted the wrong post, but I think my point is clear.
All of those things are undoubtedly true.

I still very firmly believe it's the right thing to do and that competitive balance is far less important than giving people the right to earn money off of their talents. I think allowing endorsements may well lead to college athletics being less entertaining. My entertainment isn't (nor should it be) one of the top considerations here.

All players receive “money” for their talents, it’s called full cost of attending a university. Some may deserve much more than that, some may not.
Exactly. Which is why it seems like a perfectly reasonable common sense solution to not restrict their ability to earn much more than that when the opportunity is available to do so.
Then have somebody offer a league for players who think they deserve more. They’ve tried that and it doesn’t make money.
See the above arguments in this thread for why it doesn’t make it a common sense solution.
Yes, I've seen those arguments. And they don't strike me as particularly good arguments. I don't think an individual's earning potential should be reduced purely because MAC football fans want to pretend they're able to compete on the same level as Michigan.

We don't compete with P5 schools. We're not even eligible for the National Championship, and they structured the system in a way to ensure that. Time to call a spade a spade, recognize the divisions and free up the market a bit for athletes.
Last Edited: 1/16/2019 11:13:07 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 88
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)