Good. I hope it happens. "Amateurism" for major sports needs to die a painful death
.-.
Edsall Says Pay CFB Players
- Thread starter uconnphil2016
- Start date
Good. I hope it happens. "Amateurism" for major sports needs to die a painful death
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,004
- Reaction Score
- 19,324
True dat. The unique combination of undying loyalty to and relentless passion for Dear Old Alma Mater U is what drives interest, attendance, and ratings. No one is going to a D-League game. The players better wake up and realize that whether it’s due to an agent’s greed, their own ego, or collective ignorance, sometimes golden gooses get cooked.
First of all, I didn't make fun of any students, I simply said they are under no obligation to attend a school they can't afford. That's a fact.
Second, I didn't say UConn would "have" to pay the students. If UConn can't afford it, so be it, but don't tell me Ohio State can't afford it.
Third, I didn't say it was profit. I understand the difference between profit and revenue. Mark Emmert makes nearly $2 million a year running one of the most corrupt organization in sports, but Jalen Adams can't generate revenue from a YouTube channel.
Fourth, if they reform the rules and allow players to be drafted out of high school, but "stashed" in college, instead of being sent overseas. The NBA can have a wage structure similar to the first 3-4 years of a player's time in the NBA. The team can negotiate a contract with the player. And when it comes to football, most of the P5 schools can absolutely afford to pay their players, and every school can allow them to
Lastly, you, and just about everyone else with the attitude that the people generating the revenue for everyone else should shut up and take what they get is reminiscent of indentured servitude. You pick one source of revenue that could be used to pay the players, when in reality, there could be multiple streams. The schools, the NCAA, the NBA, whoever owns the rights to the CFP and gets that TV money ($7.3 BILLION), private sources/endorsements, agents, the players can generate revenue themselves. There are multiple streams of revenue available. You choose to only focus on two, and say it can't or shouldn't be done. BS.
Every time someone like @weyuo argues that these players should shut up and be grateful I think of this.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,381
- Reaction Score
- 2,863
First, I just pointed out that no one is obligated to take a Division-I scholarship. The problem is that there is no great economic value for the athletic labor of 99.99% of age 18-21 athletic labor, just as there isn’t for most regular labor in that age group without a college degree. If there was, someone would have started a professional league for those players. The best they could hope for is probably something akin to Canadian Junior Hockey which at least covers room & board and a very small stipend). Most would probably be playing for virtually zero.
I do, however, get your argument that the big schools can afford to pay. Are you arguing for a fixed stipend (how big?) or a true free market? If the latter, will the players have agents? Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season? Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets? Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue? Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up? If not, why not? Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?
Of course, such a truly open market plan will not only wipe out UConn athletics as we know it, but most P5 programs as well. As soon as they are treated like minor leagues, with placement of players at the whim of professional organizations, the fans will start to treat them like minor league teams. No minor league team in any sport draws 60,000 fans or significant TV ratings.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the schools are generating most of the economic value (by sponsoring teams for good ‘ole State U) and, in a free market, most of the players would actually do worse. Now, I understand if you were to say, “That’s the price of a free market. Few free markets support the number of competitors we have in college sports so most will go away. Furthermore, big-time college sports masquerading as amateurism is a sham anyway.” If that’s your argument it’s at least philosophically and economically consistent. I could even agree with it (although I’ll miss most college sports) because it is a sham. Just don’t think that you can make them into low-level professional leagues and nothing will change except a re-distribution of wealth, because that’s fantasy.
There’s a continuum. On a small scale (small stipends) it will just wipe out most second and third tier sports (particularly with Title IX impacts, which you ignore but that’s the law of the land). On a larger scale (“free market pay”), it will wipe out all but the largest schools -and those will eventually suffer if they are ad hoc minor leagues. Then again, with fewer current students going to games even at P5 schools maybe a collapse is inevitable in the next 20-30 years anyway.
I do, however, get your argument that the big schools can afford to pay. Are you arguing for a fixed stipend (how big?) or a true free market? If the latter, will the players have agents? Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season? Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets? Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue? Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up? If not, why not? Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?
Of course, such a truly open market plan will not only wipe out UConn athletics as we know it, but most P5 programs as well. As soon as they are treated like minor leagues, with placement of players at the whim of professional organizations, the fans will start to treat them like minor league teams. No minor league team in any sport draws 60,000 fans or significant TV ratings.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the schools are generating most of the economic value (by sponsoring teams for good ‘ole State U) and, in a free market, most of the players would actually do worse. Now, I understand if you were to say, “That’s the price of a free market. Few free markets support the number of competitors we have in college sports so most will go away. Furthermore, big-time college sports masquerading as amateurism is a sham anyway.” If that’s your argument it’s at least philosophically and economically consistent. I could even agree with it (although I’ll miss most college sports) because it is a sham. Just don’t think that you can make them into low-level professional leagues and nothing will change except a re-distribution of wealth, because that’s fantasy.
There’s a continuum. On a small scale (small stipends) it will just wipe out most second and third tier sports (particularly with Title IX impacts, which you ignore but that’s the law of the land). On a larger scale (“free market pay”), it will wipe out all but the largest schools -and those will eventually suffer if they are ad hoc minor leagues. Then again, with fewer current students going to games even at P5 schools maybe a collapse is inevitable in the next 20-30 years anyway.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 99,772
- Reaction Score
- 396,566
Post last winter workout media session:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 99,772
- Reaction Score
- 396,566
.-.
I do, however, get your argument that the big schools can afford to pay. Are you arguing for a fixed stipend (how big?) or a true free market?
Combination of both. There isn't one "perfect" solution to this. I've stated several times there are multiple revenue streams available to players, don't get stuck on this idea that it "has to be one or another".
If the latter, will the players have agents?
If they choose to.
Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season?
Contract with the player that require them to remain in school for a set amount of time, I'd even agree that you can require the players to earn at least an Associates Degree before they leave. Require them to spend at least 2 years in school, the pro leagues can pay them a certain amount. If they don't earn their degree, penalize the pro team with a fine equivalent to whatever they paid the athlete and payable to the school in the form of scholarships. The team can take that penalty out of the player's future earnings.
No transactions mid-season.
Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets?
No.
Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue?
Who said the colleges are getting paid?
Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up?
No.
If not, why not?
Because there needs to be stability in the college ranks.
Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?
No. They aren't major leaguers, and they're being paid. Minor league baseball players who are drafted don't accrue accrue any major league service time until they make the major leagues.
We all watched the Lakers draft Ater Majok after seeing how bad he was at UConn. They drafted his potential and sent him overseas, essentially wasting a pick.
A smart GM would use that draft pick on a HS senior with potential, let him play in college for two years, then bring him in. If they don't want to bring him in, he's a free agent like everyone else that goes undrafted.
Combination of both. There isn't one "perfect" solution to this. I've stated several times there are multiple revenue streams available to players, don't get stuck on this idea that it "has to be one or another".
If the latter, will the players have agents?
If they choose to.
Will they have enforceable contracts with the school or will the Jets be able to sign the next Baker Mayfield when their QB is hurt mid-season?
Contract with the player that require them to remain in school for a set amount of time, I'd even agree that you can require the players to earn at least an Associates Degree before they leave. Require them to spend at least 2 years in school, the pro leagues can pay them a certain amount. If they don't earn their degree, penalize the pro team with a fine equivalent to whatever they paid the athlete and payable to the school in the form of scholarships. The team can take that penalty out of the player's future earnings.
No transactions mid-season.
Alternatively, could the school sell Mayfield’s contract to the Jets?
No.
Will colleges have four year contracts with players and end up selling their best players after each year to pro teams to generate more revenue?
Who said the colleges are getting paid?
Similarly, if teams are “stashing” players in college will they be able to call them up?
No.
If not, why not?
Because there needs to be stability in the college ranks.
Shouldn’t players be able to start accruing major league service time and value toward their new contract as soon as possible?
No. They aren't major leaguers, and they're being paid. Minor league baseball players who are drafted don't accrue accrue any major league service time until they make the major leagues.
We all watched the Lakers draft Ater Majok after seeing how bad he was at UConn. They drafted his potential and sent him overseas, essentially wasting a pick.
A smart GM would use that draft pick on a HS senior with potential, let him play in college for two years, then bring him in. If they don't want to bring him in, he's a free agent like everyone else that goes undrafted.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
I thought they played for a college scholarship worth about $100,000 per year. Take advantage of it guys. They should never be paid by any university. Wanna get paid coming out of H.S., go to some developmemtal league. The fact that it wouldnt draw flys for a viewing audience is besides the point. Also there already are places athletes get paid . . . NFL, NBA, MLB, et al. College is about getting an education. Maybe these student-ATHLETES should work after class to appreciate what they have.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
College athletes are being paid. Roughly a $100,000 investment a year. How about taking advantage of it. Or, how about colleges admitting college capable students, so they can take advantage of it.
I don't think I've ever seen someone so out of touch with reality in my life.
There is no developmental league for the NFL. There's only college. They aren't allowed to enter the draft until they've been out of school for three years. So anyone with NFL aspirations HAS TO go to college.
Also, the guys who are valuable are not allowed to profit off their value. Jersey sales? No. Appearance fee? No. Endorsement? Nope. YouTube page with ads? Negative.
Why? Because that money could go to the NCAA and the school instead. If Barbarino Nissan wants to pay Jalen Adams $20k to do a commercial he should be allowed to do it. Anyone arguing otherwise only wants to keep these guys as indentured servants.
The point isn't that they're being "paid" with a free education, the point is many, many others are getting rich off the players, and the system is built in a manner that exploits the athletes responsible for the NCAA and university getting billions from CBS and ESPN.
Comments like this last one make you look like a special kind of moron. Many of the athletes are more than capable in the classroom. And it's not the players forcing the school to lower their standards for those who aren't, it's the schools doing it on their own because of THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
They are being paid: approximately $100,000 per year. Period. The players should not be able to use their status as a UConn player (or any other school) to profit. If they weren't an athlete at UConn (or any other big time program) they would have little value. And, it doesn't matter what the university is making, the players agreed to a full college scholarship as fair value for their services.
Maybe college sports should adopt a no scholarship model, so that these players can work after classes to pay off loans . . . and maybe appreciate better the wonderful opportunity they have.
This is a moronic argument. If the athletes weren't at D1 schools they wouldn't be making millions off of them.
You obviously don't realize it, but there's an entire FBI investigation into the amount of money being thrown at these kids, and it's in the millions. One player got $100k in one season. That money wasn't given to him because he didn't have any value outside of Arizona. It was given to him because the amount of value he has even without Arizon. If they could have signed him straight out of high school, they would have.
The players have no choice but to take the scholarship, you're arguing they made a free decision in a free market. That's not true for football players, and arguing a HS basketball player should just go overseas for a year is equally moronic.
I'd love to know where you're getting this $100k a year number from. My guess is you pulled it straight from your arse.
And FYI, even if they refused the scholarship, they still couldn't profit off anything to do with their athleticism or they lose eligibility. I'm not even arguing UConn has to pay them, I'm saying they should be allowed to profit off their value. Just because my employer is paying me, doesn't mean I can't have multiple streams of revenue.
Maybe I should tell you exactly how much you're allowed to make, that you're not allowed any other jobs or sources of revenue, and that your family should continue to live in poverty while those running the system you're forced into are becoming millionaires.
Last edited:
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,381
- Reaction Score
- 2,863
Frankly, I’m wondering if Edsall is losing his grip on reality. He’s the 7 figure (yes, I know, just barely) coach of a program that is losing millions in an athletic department that is right up among the top in terms of subsidy from the university.
See: https://senate.uconn.edu/wp-content...Senate-UBC-Report-on-AD-Subsidy-to-Senate.pdf
Combine that with a state that is in rough shape financially and will probably keep reducing its support and you have to wonder what he’s thinking when he’s proposing to add millions in new expenses (including other major men’s sports and Title IX impacts). Maybe he’s decided he can’t repeat his success here and is looking for a way to get terminated so he can collect on the rest of his contract.
See: https://senate.uconn.edu/wp-content...Senate-UBC-Report-on-AD-Subsidy-to-Senate.pdf
Combine that with a state that is in rough shape financially and will probably keep reducing its support and you have to wonder what he’s thinking when he’s proposing to add millions in new expenses (including other major men’s sports and Title IX impacts). Maybe he’s decided he can’t repeat his success here and is looking for a way to get terminated so he can collect on the rest of his contract.
Exit 4
This space for rent
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction Score
- 40,912
I haven't read all of Randy's quotes on this subject. Has he toss out a #?
Maybe Randy believes that kids should get some nominal figure, lets say 5k a year or that schools should have the option to pay a certain number of players, but not the entire roster. Maybe Randy is just exhausted from the endless policing that needs to be done to comply with the NCAA on the issue of gifts/cash...and maybe Randy is just disgusted that coaches salaries continue to get insane and figures paying players would help curb that insanity. I don't know what Randy is really thinking, but maybe these are some of the angles.
I dont want to pay players, but I could see the merits in creating a new class of football scholarship where say 10 of the 85 scholarships come with 10k of annual cash compensation. This could be used to help with all programs deal with this truly disadvantage kids.
Simple question that you’re not answering...And I hear what you’re saying about the “being paid with a scholarship,” theory. But explain why they shouldn’t be able to profit off of their value? How is that harming the NCAA? If player X is good enough to have companies offer money to use his likeness how does that harm the NCAA? What if player X is taking full advantage of his scholly and is kicking ass in his sport, hasn’t he/she earned the right to profit off their talent in excess of the scholarship?
On the back end perhaps that would incentivize some players to stay in school a little longer since they’re making extra money and truly love being at said school?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,381
- Reaction Score
- 2,863
Yes and you nailed it. At one point in his latest pitch he threw out $10K as a figure. I don’t believe he talked about different classes of scholarships, but yours is an interesting idea. On the other hand I’m sure others will say 10 scholarships and $10K aren’t enough.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
Maybe $100,000 is high, but ask any family trying to put a kid through college (room and board) how much it costs and how valuable a full schoarship would be to them.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
The athlete himself has no value other than what the school has allowed them to have through exosure. Why are high school athletes profiting off their talents (save for full rides and under the table violations of NCAA rules)?
.-.
I don't need to ask, I know first hand. And it's not $100k. It's typically half that, and if you go in-state, it's closer to a third or less. Like I said, you're talking out of your arse. You uninformed, out of touch with reality, and mind-numbingly stupid. Your argument boils down to "because I say so", you have no logical argument for why an athlete shouldn't be allowed to earn revenue off of his value, while the school and NCAA, does.
This is epic. You keep saying they have no value other than what the "school allows" but then you acknowledge the fact these kids are getting paid BEFORE they even enter the school. That means they have value.
My God you're an idiot. There have been logical arguments against paying kids that I just disagree with. Yours is nothing like that. You ignore reality, make a statement as if it's fact, only to prove yourself wrong in the very next sentence. The player wouldn't have value without the school? False. That's why they're getting paid before they even commit to going to the schools. The opposite of your argument is what is true. Without the players, there would be no sports. Period. No money from TV. No money from sponsors. Nothing.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 4,432
- Reaction Score
- 23,139
Every full-ride football player at UConn gets a cost-of-attendance check for about $7k. They can use it how they see fit.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
Wow, talk about ignorant. You really don't understand that without the big name schools, these kids would be making what the players from Williams, Trinity and Western Connecticut State University are making.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,926
- Reaction Score
- 3,845
Read post from Kibblesanbits on this page. It pretty much says what I'm saying. Good luck with crowd support for these players in minor league hoops.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,586
- Reaction Score
- 25,561
Players getting paid just makes me want to see UCONN drop to the FCS level. North Dakota State fans seem to be having fun and that school probably isn't losing 30 million a year. I bet a lot of schools would drop out if a professional model were adopted so we would be in good company.
Last edited:
.-.
And you don't understand that without the players, there would be no big name schools. You have the IQ of a dead fish. You argued that HS players have no value, while talking about the money HS players get in the same post. Moron.
If the players needed the schools more than the schools needed the players then scholarships wouldn't exist.
If the players had zero value without the schools, then the schools wouldn't risk forfeiting games, scholarships, and financial penalties by facilitating payments to the players and regularly violating NCAA rules.