CA college athletes can now get paid$$

messy said:
Sounds like a certain po angry white boy got eaten out for a spot on a team...by a black kid.
Pay the kids...they're working for major corporations.
Click to expand...

I played soccer. So no... no black kid took my spot. Keep swinging the race card, though. You're bound to hit something eventually.
 
focomoso said:
Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...
Click to expand...

Except that if it wasn't for football or hoop, most of them wouldn't be attending college or getting it for free. They did receive compensation... it's called tuition, books, rent, meal cards, preferential class placement, free tutoring. There's a dollar value on that. And don't tell me most of them would have been accepted any other way. And if they get hurt? OH FUCKING WELL. At least they're enrolled in college and many will receive their full scholarship. Yeah... they won't make millions running or bouncing a ball, but welcome to the real world. Get a job.
 
oh canada said:
Point taken, because we're talking about football and women don't play football so there isn't an exactly equal setoff, but you would concede the college could eliminate a significant number of female sport scholarships if eliminating football? Pretty sure if we're talking basketball, and a school is offering 15 scholarships to men they have to also offer 15 scholarships to women, no?


Correct. So if the CA law is applied throughout NCAA and including the Ivy League, that would provide Ivy student athletes with an added potential $ stream. i.e., presently, if Joe Stud hockey player is deciding between Harvard and U. of Michgan, if he comes from an upper middle class family he is likely going to have to pay his entire way at Harvard (or most of it) whereas U.ofM can offer him a free education. Under the 2023 law, if Joe can pick up some endorsement deals from Nike or Bauer or Boston hockey boosters, he might be able to get through Harvard debt free. Levels the playing ice.
Click to expand...

yes, let’s undermine the integrity
 
If Harvard wanted a level playing field, it would give scholarships. But yes, let’s further undermine the integrity of the institution by allowing boosters from Boston to buy a kid. Great idea. The whole reason that ivies don’t have scholarships is to have need based financial assistance. Why would you do anything to undermine that through a law?

If the kid can’t afford Harvard, he’ll get plenty of aid like all the other students. If he can, why the hec would you create a law so he can be paid by boosters? So, so ridiculous.
 
focomoso said:
Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...
Click to expand...

they should have gone pro. If there is no league, then create one. If the league is unsuccessful, like lavar ball’s, then they don’t generate enough money. Pretty simple.

btw - which kids do we specifically think are getting screwed? The second string linebacker, or the first string linebacker that signs a 5 million guaranteed contract? As much as I hate the NCAA, I’m a little lost on who we are really trying to help through this law.
 
oh canada said:
Or what happens when the booster overpays a running back $50,000 to endorse his car dealership in a TV ad to keep up with what guys are getting at their rival school? That’s $50,000 less he’s giving in donations to the athletic department.
Click to expand...

excellent points here. but can't expect perfection in any scenario. every system gets gamed in the end.
 
Poconos said:
excellent points here. but can't expect perfection in any scenario. every system gets gamed in the end.
Click to expand...
Correct. Bottom line is these kids are given scholarships to perform for big money interests and they should play for more than tuition, room and board.
 
Glen said:
which kids do we specifically think are getting screwed? The second string linebacker, or the first string linebacker that signs a 5 million guaranteed contract?
Click to expand...

Who is getting screwed? The kids who get injured. No degree, no pro contract, just bad knees, back trouble, and a resume with 3 years of phony classes.

You can argue that the proposed law is worse than some other remedy. But I don’t see how you can argue that no one got harmed.
 
dad4 said:
Who is getting screwed? The kids who get injured. No degree, no pro contract, just bad knees, back trouble, and a resume with 3 years of phony classes.

You can argue that the proposed law is worse than some other remedy. But I don’t see how you can argue that no one got harmed.
Click to expand...

The kids who get injured will still be enrolled in college. They'll still have an opportunity the rest of us have when, let's be honest, a good portion of them would never have had. Most aren't going to play professionally anyway. Are they harmed because they didn't turn pro? Sorry... I don't have a lot of pity for college athletes. They work hard. So does the kid that has to assume debt after graduation, fight for classes like everyone else and go work for 4-5 hours a day after classes. Don't tell me that's easier. Is the argument that a kid who plays for 1 year at Duke or North Carolina gives more to the school than he gets? I'd have a hard time believing that. And how much money is offensive linemen #66 actually making for Michigan football? Sorry... I'm not buying.
 
focomoso said:
Except, when in college, they don't make any money. That's the point. They get a career-ending injury while in college and... no millions of dollars. They did work that generated income and did not receive compensation...
Click to expand...
How much is a college education worth?
 
Sheriff Joe said:
How much is a college education worth?
Click to expand...

This is actually a deeper question than you think - it really depends on major and what career choice the student decides on. But if you’re referring to the value of the scholarship an athlete receives - a quick google search says on avg a student athlete gets $10k in tuition/room/board. I don’t know if that’s total or per year. But let’s say it’s per year. Given student athletes put in 20hrs/week on avg over the entire year that’s less than $10/hr they’re “earning” for the time put in.
 
Supermodel56 said:
This is actually a deeper question than you think - it really depends on major and what career choice the student decides on. But if you’re referring to the value of the scholarship an athlete receives - a quick google search says on avg a student athlete gets $10k in tuition/room/board. I don’t know if that’s total or per year. But let’s say it’s per year. Given student athletes put in 20hrs/week on avg over the entire year that’s less than $10/hr they’re “earning” for the time put in.
Click to expand...
I would assume that the major D1 schools’ scholarships are worth $50K per year easy. Not nearly enough when the shirts and video games etc are sold, if you’re Zion or someone like that.
 
messy said:
I would assume that the major D1 schools’ scholarships are worth $50K per year easy. Not nearly enough when the shirts and video games etc are sold, if you’re Zion or someone like that.
Click to expand...

That's if you're getting a full ride. For most athletes it doesn't sound like it's even close to that much. I have no problem with schools making money off it's players - it doesn't matter how much - that's how the world works. Companies hire employees because employees enable the company to generate significant revenue - they deliver a positive ROI. The problem is when the schools/NCAA won't allow kids to make their own deals, create their own brands, launch their own businesses, etc... This is anti-competitive and in many ways unfair to the athletes.

That SAID.... I can also see why this is very troubling for the NCAA and could put college sports at risk altogether - it has less to do with not wanting to help the athletes or thinking they deserve it.

The biggest "issue" I see is when it comes to recruiting and I think this is why the NCAA is so concerned - the bigger schools will likely have boosters willing to pay top dollar offering high paying "jobs" to lure players. As a result, this will give those schools a huge advantage in terms of talent and now you've got teams where the players are essentially professionally paid athletes playing against teams with players who aren't. It could potentially destroy the league altogether if the games become non-competitive and there's a perceived non-level recruiting playing field. This is why the NFL/NBA/MLB drafts are largely based on previous season performance - prioritizing losing teams, salary caps, etc... and also why the NCAA regulates recruiting so heavily - it benefits the league and players to have competitive games and at least some semblance of recruiting fairness, because without it, the interest quickly declines and the audience (which is where the real money - eyeballs watching/fans) would shrink dramatically. Watching pro athletes play against gifted high school athletes is only fun for so long... Unless there's some equal structure as to how much college athletes get paid and recruited - just the idea of unfairness is enough for a significant portion of the audience to lose interest in the games altogether - without the audience and interest, all the revenue goes away, not just for the NCAA, but for the school and the player.

I think the biggest challenge in all this will be figuring out how the NCAA is going maintain a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. If they don't, Gavin Newsom may have just single-handedly destroyed college sports.
 
Supermodel56 said:
That's if you're getting a full ride. For most athletes it doesn't sound like it's even close to that much. I have no problem with schools making money off it's players - it doesn't matter how much - that's how the world works. Companies hire employees because employees enable the company to generate significant revenue - they deliver a positive ROI. The problem is when the schools/NCAA won't allow kids to make their own deals, create their own brands, launch their own businesses, etc... This is anti-competitive and in many ways unfair to the athletes.

That SAID.... I can also see why this is very troubling for the NCAA and could put college sports at risk altogether - it has less to do with not wanting to help the athletes or thinking they deserve it.

The biggest "issue" I see is when it comes to recruiting and I think this is why the NCAA is so concerned - the bigger schools will likely have boosters willing to pay top dollar offering high paying "jobs" to lure players. As a result, this will give those schools a huge advantage in terms of talent and now you've got teams where the players are essentially professionally paid athletes playing against teams with players who aren't. It could potentially destroy the league altogether if the games become non-competitive and there's a perceived non-level recruiting playing field. This is why the NFL/NBA/MLB drafts are largely based on previous season performance - prioritizing losing teams, salary caps, etc... and also why the NCAA regulates recruiting so heavily - it benefits the league and players to have competitive games and at least some semblance of recruiting fairness, because without it, the interest quickly declines and the audience (which is where the real money - eyeballs watching/fans) would shrink dramatically. Watching pro athletes play against gifted high school athletes is only fun for so long... Unless there's some equal structure as to how much college athletes get paid and recruited - just the idea of unfairness is enough for a significant portion of the audience to lose interest in the games altogether - without the audience and interest, all the revenue goes away, not just for the NCAA, but for the school and the player.

I think the biggest challenge in all this will be figuring out how the NCAA is going maintain a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. If they don't, Gavin Newsom may have just single-handedly destroyed college sports.
Click to expand...

The schools that will have a big advantage with this are those that are already doing it illegally.
 
The Outlaw said:
Except that if it wasn't for football or hoop, most of them wouldn't be attending college or getting it for free. They did receive compensation... it's called tuition, books, rent, meal cards, preferential class placement, free tutoring. There's a dollar value on that. And don't tell me most of them would have been accepted any other way. And if they get hurt? OH FUCKING WELL. At least they're enrolled in college and many will receive their full scholarship. Yeah... they won't make millions running or bouncing a ball, but welcome to the real world. Get a job.
Click to expand...
Except that for basketball and football, they can't go pro unless they play in college and the dollar value of their scholarship does not come close to the revenue they bring in.
 
Glen said:
they should have gone pro. If there is no league, then create one. If the league is unsuccessful, like lavar ball’s, then they don’t generate enough money. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious suggestion? Work for no money or start your own league?

My point here is that if you do work that generates revenue, you should be compensated for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top