|
swickles posted:Burn down the NCAA. I hope more schools follow suit and attack the NCAA from multiple angles at once. Universities want no part in actually paying student athletes. Why would they? It'd hurt their bottom line. I'm also in favor of this action. Students are expected to treat their sport like a full time job in terms of preparation and commitment; I have no problem with them demanding some form of wages. Yes, they get scholarships, but that doesn't even cover the full cost of attending school. superaielman fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jan 29, 2014 |
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Each player on the roster gets paid a standard flat fee from general merchandising and tv rights etc. Additionally, players get paid a percentage of any merchandise sold with their specific name or likeness on (jerseys etc.). Players are allowed to use their likeness to earn money outside of official college merchandising, but pay a percentage of these activities back to the school. All players are insured under a standard policy that pays out for serious injury which is covered by the NCAA and not individual schools (so smaller, less profitable schools don't get whacked on insurance claims). Players still have to enrol and attend classes like any other student and must remain academically eligible in order to play. That's a lot of loving money the NCAA and schools are not going to be willing to pay out. I would expect to see a lot of programs shuttering rather than dealing with that kind of outlay of money. I'm all for pressuring the NCAA to change and (Like most everyone here) think the way they treat athletes is pretty lovely, but I don't think that solution is at all realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Yeah, moms and dads will magically decide their babies shouldn't play this game anymore once the integrity is gone and they start making actual money doing it. I can hear the parents from Friday Night Tykes now, "A&M is gonna pay you $15,000* a year while you're also a student? Not in my household, boy. Get to studyin and quit dreamin." Don't be a dick. He's right that this unionizing players would generate tremendous change and could cause irreparable harm to college football.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Apologies for nested quotes.quote:I think you misunderstand me because unions loving rule and I want the athletes to seize the means of yardage production and get paid according to their labor. Labor reform Owns, gently caress the NCAA and their bourgeois ownership class. D&D is thataway if you want an echo chamber of outrage. Cut the poo poo otherwise. quote:I think unionizing is the way to go. Right now, the only people talking about paying players is coming for the media and there are so many things a union or organization of players can accomplish other than pay for athletes. For one, eliminating the the three year rule. Right now it serves no purpose Blame the NFL for that. I'd bet the players union would fight that as well, as increased numbers of college kids playing in the NFL would lead to more veterans on the street. There's already tremendous economic pressure in the NFL to play rookies due to cap issues, and removing the three year rule would just accelerate that. Jack Bechta touches on a lot of it in this column, which is a pretty good read. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-next-CBA-adjustments.html I don't expect the NFL to remove that rule unless they bite the bullet and actually form a farm system for pro sports. Like with a lot of the rules set up at the NCAA level, it isn't designed to be fair to the players. The three year rule is pretty small change on the 'lovely things done to college players', compared to things like the rules on player transfers and the salaries college coaches draw. quote:Re: where's the money going to come from? Assuming that you're going to do nothing more than pay 85 scholarship kids a $20k per year stipend, you need to find $1.7 million a year. Multiply that by 14 teams, you've got about $23 million. It's more than the cost of athletes, though. Health care costs are a pretty big burden and athletes want the universites to take care of that. There is money in the NCAA system, but it's unevenly distributed among schools and this would drive out a lot of the smaller schools from having college programs. Also the salary for football coaches is pretty outrageous. I blame the NFL (as always) for foisting it's farm system off on colleges.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:And they will get what they deserve, which is nothing. What I'm getting from most of you is that you are all perfectly okay with destroying 95% of the athletic programs in the country so long as the 5% get what is owed to them. Good job killing the dreams of a college education of loads of athletes from mid majors on down because no one can afford to pay athletes a salary because Title IX requires all athletes to be paid equally and insurance along with worker's comp eats up entire athletic budgets until they are forced to shut down. I don't want to pile on since you already have a dozen people hammering at you, but I think you're being unfair. There are definitely going to be negative consequences to this, but the current system as it stands is so hosed up that the fallout of that is better than having a system where coaches make millions while star football players get suspended for signing autographs for money. It's not only pretty outrageously unfair, but it practically begs for corruption. (See: Miami football scandal where that one booster was literally handing out cash for strip clubs. Nevis I think?) quote:Nobody knows how Title IX will work with this decision - if it even stands - but it's likely that Title IX will only allow female athletes to also unionize, or will make the bargaining unit larger. That is still going to be a large outlay of cash for a lot of programs that are already in the red. However you feel about the issue, it's going to have an appreciable impact on a lot of smaller D1 and down programs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
The rules are there to protect the NCAA, not the athletes. This is an extreme example, but:Arian Foster posted:
Any system where this is a logical outcome has some pretty terribly designed rules. The system was not designed to deal with the moneymaker that some of college sports has become.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:47
|
|