... the next time a blue chip recruit makes a head-scratching college choice out of college. It ain’t for the gumbo.

[huskymedic]

 

[Guapo]

I mean, you get money AND gumbo.

That’s a helluva combo.

 

[Matrim55]

I mean, you get money AND gumbo.

That’s a helluva combo.

And LSU co-eds. Naz made a good choice.

Also... just pay the players already. Sheesh.

 

[superjohn]

And LSU co-eds. Naz made a good choice.

Also... just pay the players already. Sheesh.

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

 

[andy34]

What do you pay them though? How is paying them gonna stop a kid from taking 300K?

let the market decide what they're paid. if someone decides they're worth 300K, then they're worth 300K.

 

[whaler11]

does hurley’s contract deny him exit money for violations?

 

[HuskyHawk]

let the market decide what they're paid. if someone decides they're worth 300K, then they're worth 300K.

Nah. That would create chaos and make most schools unable to compete. Set a fixed scale at way less than $300k. Maybe $10-$50k. Give each school a fixed number of 50k, 30k and 10k slots. It works like a salary cap. Then set the penalty for violations by a coach as = forbidden to ever work for an NCAA program ever again. And penalty for school as 10 year ban from play at all. Any games. Not just post-season.

Combine that with the G-league taking kids from HS and this goes away.

 

[Guapo]

let the market decide what they're paid. if someone decides they're worth 300K, then they're worth 300K.

(And they are likely worth a whole lot more than 300k)

 

[andy34]

Nah. That would create chaos and make most schools unable to compete. Set a fixed scale at way less than $300k. Maybe $10-$50k. Give each school a fixed number of 50k, 30k and 10k slots. It works like a salary cap. Then set the penalty for violations by a coach as = forbidden to ever work for an NCAA program ever again. And penalty for school as 10 year ban from play at all. Any games. Not just post-season.

Combine that with the G-league taking kids from HS and this goes away.

You think players who can currently get potentially up to 300K are gonna be happy with 10K? Ok lol.

The reality is the entire amateurism model is based on restricting players from being paid their worth. We don't really know what that value is right now, because an entire ecosystem has developed around them being paid nothing at all. But I have a feeling that going from 0 to 10K aint gonna cut it

 

[superjohn]

let the market decide what they're paid. if someone decides they're worth 300K, then they're worth 300K.

What market? You're going to pay every athlete 300K? Just the basketball players? That seems like a disaster to me and ensures only a few of the biggest programs who make the most money will be able to compete.

 

[Guapo]

What market? You're going to pay every athlete 300K? Just the basketball players? That seems like a disaster to me and ensures only a few of the biggest programs who make the most money will be able to compete.

What do you mean what market?

 

[andy34]

What market? You're going to pay every athlete 300K? Just the basketball players? That seems like a disaster to me and ensures only a few of the biggest programs who make the most money will be able to compete.

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

 

[superjohn]

What do you mean what market?

The free market? The TV market?

You seem to think the free market has college athletes being paid a lot more than 300K.

How does this work? Only the football and basketball players are getting paid? They're making 500K or a million while everyone else makes nothing? We're going to pay each player 500K or we're going to pay each player differently based off of the money we think they bring into the school? How do we quantify that? I don't see how any of this works...

Seems to me no female athletes would ever get paid, football and basketball would be the only sports that would survive and it would be only a handful of schools competing, maybe only a small amount of schools who still have athletic programs. The inequities between the different sports, the different sexes, and the schools would be untenable and would never hold up in the courts or with the schools.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You think players who can currently get potentially up to 300K are gonna be happy with 10K? Ok lol.

The reality is the entire amateurism model is based on restricting players from being paid their worth. We don't really know what that value is right now, because an entire ecosystem has developed around them being paid nothing at all. But I have a feeling that going from 0 to 10K aint gonna cut it

Who cares if they are happy? What % of them can actually play professionally? 5%? They get free college scholarship, free room and board, professional training and coaching, stipends, plus plenty of cash to live nicely as a college student.

If they want more, they can go G-League or Europe. That rule is changing now. The NBA forcing freshmen to college is the biggest cause of this problem, along with schools wanting to win. Schools wanting to win is easily solved. Death penalty for all violations of this kind, coach and school.

 

[superjohn]

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

I think it's unbelievably complicated

 

[andy34]

Who cares if they are happy?

Yea, that's the ticket...

 

[Jbirdp5]

UConn has money problems as it is, if players start getting paid UConn probably moves further down the pecking order of college programs. Our football coach paid an assistant out of his pocket now we are going to pay an entire basketball and football team. We’d be cooked

 

[Fairfield_1st]

If it i$n't the gumbo, could it be the Memphi$ rub on the rib$? For a guy who'$ coached all of 1 $ea$on in college, he $ure ha$ a lot of $way with recruit$. He mu$t have really developed relation$hip$ with all tho$e $tud player$. Impre$$ive.
Like LSU before them, I'm always suspect when a school suddenly starts getting lots of top recruits.

 

[goskis2018]

The solution is simple, let kids go pro out of high school. If you want to get paid go pro if you want to develop your game under a college coach in order to get drafted higher and get a bigger rookie deal that's your choice. Universities should get rid of college athletics before paying kids to go to school to just play sports.

 

[Guapo]

The free market? The TV market?

You seem to think the free market has college athletes being paid a lot more than 300K.

How does this work? Only the football and basketball players are getting paid? They're making 500K or a million while everyone else makes nothing? We're going to pay each player 500K or we're going to pay each player differently based off of the money we think they bring into the school? How do we quantify that? I don't see how any of this works...

Seems to me no female athletes would ever get paid, football and basketball would be the only sports that would survive and it would be only a handful of schools competing, maybe only a small amount of schools who still have athletic programs. The inequities between the different sports, the different sexes, and the schools would be untenable and would never hold up in the courts or with the schools.

those are definitely issues that come up with paying athletes. I thought you were going down the line of “there is no market” which is demonstrably untrue as shown by the vast black market that already exists and which nearly every school participates in (except UConn, of course).

 

[Poe]

It's not complicated, schools should be free to pay their employees what they believe they are worth, including athletes. If actually paying your workers endangers your entire industry, then that's a pretty harsh indictment of the industry. Or put another way, who is more deserving of fairness and equity: the workers who have heretofore been unpaid, or the institutions who have financially benefited from unpaid work for decades?

This would just result in another professional league run by small number of universities that can afford to pay players. Also, what would be the point of these players being students when they are employees getting paid big salaries. Most schools that can’t afford to pay, would probably just continue with the current model and not play the schools with “professional” players.

Paying players would be a disaster for college sports. I’d rather schools continue to try to pay players under the table. If they get away with it so be it, if they get caught then they have to deal with significant consequences.

 

[Rewster]

The solution is simple, let kids go pro out of high school. If you want to get paid go pro if you want to develop your game under a college coach in order to get drafted higher and get a bigger rookie deal that's your choice. Universities should get rid of college athletics before paying kids to go to school to just play sports.

Nobody forces you to go to college and not get paid(slave argument is so silly)
If you don’t want the benefits of going to college then don’t go.

I wouldn’t be opposed to getting paid for likeness per se but how the hell do you prevent the LSU car dealer(booster)from giving the best player in high school a cool Mil for a couple of TV ads

 

[UConnSwag11]

let the market decide what they're paid. if someone decides they're worth 300K, then they're worth 300K.

Lol then they shouldn’t be in college

 

[andy34]

I’d rather schools continue to try to pay players under the table.

You can't be serious. In many situations, the dirty agents and handlers take all or most of the money themselves. That's what you want to preserve?

 

[Travelman6]

The kids already are paid. A four year scholarship isn't cheap, that right there is worth a lot. Plus they are given housing, food, access to personal trainers, a gym, free travel and lodging while away on longer trips, exposure on national tv, medical, tutors whenever they need and so much more. When you add all of that up over the course of four years that is a ton of value. Even for just a year. And they deserve money on top of that while the average student is up to their neck in debt? Come on. A number of students are given an opportunity, to get a four year degree that maybe they would not have had, had they not been skilled at basketball or football. Of course there are a lot of examples of student-athletes, like Emeka Okafor, who would get in on their own merits without a doubt. But still, it does create a lot of other opportunities for other students who would not be in school if it weren't for athletics..

The only way I could see paying athletes as fair is if they no longer got the above benefits and had to use that money to pay for all of the above, otherwise it really is not fair IMO. Personally I would stop watching if they were paid money on top of all of those benefits they already get. Plus it would create an uneven playing field where the best schools (best of the P5) would dominate even more.